|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Dredge writes: To extrapolate from variation in beaks in the same species of Galapagos finches to claiming mice turn into elephants or bears turn into whales is to expose the edge of sanity. I'm sure you've been told that this is NOT evolution many times before. To keep repeating an error having been corrected on it is lying. When you do it you expose yourself as both ignorant and dishonest. Actually that is pretty much a hyperbolic statement of what evolutionists claims.The variation of beak sizes in Galapagos Finches has been called evolution. Evolutionists do claim that elephants evolved from small mammals, and that whales evolved from land animals. (Darwin suggested bears?) quote: It is believed that ~50 million years ago, Pakicetus, a land animal the size of a dog, was the ancestor of whales. So while it is technically incorrect to refer to mice and bears the intent is correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
And as for 'kinds', you can't even tell me whether Tapirs and Anteaters are of the elephant 'kind' or not and how the decision would be made. Why is that?
That information was in the linked article. Read it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes:
Actually you're right, they don't give a definition of kind in the linked article. But I have previously given my definition in Message 644 No operational definition of "kind" there. However the question of how members of a kind are determined is covered in there. The creationist ‘orchard’diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds.’
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
So the correct quote should be
quote: The main objection to using this would be that it is now 60 years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I would conclude that Prof Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL, Emeritus Fellow, New College, Oxford, had at last come to his senses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
evolution.berkeley.edu writes: MISCONCEPTION: Species are distinct natural entities, with a clear definition, that can be easily recognized by anyone. CORRECTION: Many of us are familiar with the biological species concept, which defines a species as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. That definition of a species might seem cut and dried and for many organisms (e.g., mammals), it works well but in many other cases, this definition is difficult to apply. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. How can the biological species concept be applied to them? Many plants and some animals form hybrids in nature, even if they largely mate within their own groups. Should groups that occasionally hybridize in selected areas be considered the same species or separate species? The concept of a species is a fuzzy one because humans invented the concept to help get a grasp on the diversity of the natural world. It is difficult to apply because the term species reflects our attempts to give discrete names to different parts of the tree of life which is not discrete at all, but a continuous web of life, connected from its roots to its leaves. The Theory of Evolution thinks the root is LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor), Creationists think the roots are the created kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: You can start an experiment with a single bacterium and grow an entire population from that single founder. What you will find is that 1 in a few hundred million bacteria will produce resistance to different kinds of antibiotic. This isn't a case of pre-existing variation. This is a case of mutations producing new characteristics. Almost right. However the mutations aren't produced in response to antibiotics. Samples of bacteria preserved from before the use of antibiotics (e.g. Franklin Expedition) have a very small proportion that are resistant. So wild populations have pre-existing variation which includes antibiotic resistance. However the reason these resistant strains are at minuscule levels in wild populations is that the mutation is usually a defect that is detrimental in the absence of antibiotics. The mutations constantly occur and are constantly removed by natural selection. A similar situation applies to insecticide resistance in insects. Since the antibiotic/insecticide gives strong selection against the majority of the population resistance can develop rapidly; within years. On the other hand the mutation is usually only mildly detrimental so it disappears more slowly when the toxin is removed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: ERVs are evidence for common ancestry because they are found at the same position in the genomes of multiple species (Message 470) HERVs are thought to play at least three major roles. One role is to control the regulation of genes (the expression of proteins from genes). Members of the HERV-K family are typically found in areas near genes. The regulatory role of HERVs has been demonstrated in the liver, placenta, colon, and other locations. Hence it is not surprising that ERVs will be found in similar locations with reference to corresponding genes in different genomes and does not necessarily indicate common ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
‘ resistance to poisons is rarely a free ride for either insects or other organisms, because the selective trade-offs imposed by pleiotropy often maintain polymorphism either within or between populations of a species. Some populations of Norway rats, for example, have evolved resistance to the rat poison warfarin. Where the poison is in widespread use, homozygotes for the allele that confers resistance are common. But that allele also lowers rats’ ability to synthesize vitamin K, a compound essential in allowing blood to clot, and they bleed more easily. For that reason, in places where warfarin is not used, individuals homozygous for this allele are at as much as a 54 percent selective disadvantage compared to wild-type rats, and the allele is far less common. The same sort of phenomenon has been demonstrated for the alleles that confer resistance to DDT and to dieldrin in mosquitoes.’
Levine, J. and Miller, K., Biology: Discovering Life, D.C. Heath, Lexington, p. 257, 1994. Researchers monitoring Culex pipiens mosquitoes overwintering in a cave in southern France (in an area where organophosphate insecticides are widely used) noted a decline in the overall frequency of insecticide-resistant mosquitoes relative to susceptible ones as the winter progressed, indicating a large fitness cost.Gazave, E., Chevillon, C., Lenormand, T., Marquine, M., Raymond, M., Dissecting the cost of insecticide resistance genes during the overwintering period of the mosquito Culex pipiens, Heredity 87:441—448, 2001
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined:
|
Acceptance of ToE is directly proportional to the incidence of atheism.
Rejection of the ToE is directly proportional to the incidence of wisdom. Creation is the theory that fits the facts.Evolution is the theory the facts don't fit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Cornelius Hunter has a different view in his blog post How the Peppered Moth Backfired
While agreeing that it is a recent mutation he says;First, changing colors is hardly a pathway leading to the kinds of massive biological change evolution requires. Second, research strongly suggests that the cause of the darkening, at the molecular level, is an enormous genetic insertion not in a DNA coding sequence, but in an intervening region (intron), which have been considered to be junk DNA in the past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I agree, and as we have seen in other threads neither the word evolution as used in biology nor the theory of evolution can be defined. This leads to almost any example of biological change over time, "evolution", being quoted as evidence for "evolution", the theory of. Nature's "15 EVOLUTIONARY GEMS" provides several examples of this.
Of course nobody in this forum would do such a thing but this slippery meaning of the word evolution provides many opportunities for bait and switch tactics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
CRR writes: I agree, and as we have seen in other threads neither the word evolution as used in biology nor the theory of evolution can be defined. Both are lies. I have defined the theory of evolution for you, and I have given the example of SIFTER as a use for the theory of evolution in this very thread. Technically I was wrong to say "evolution" couldn't be defined. I should have said that neither word nor theory have a consensus definition. Taq did give a definition but from memory nobody agreed with him. Perhaps, for the record, Taq would like to repeat his definitions for the word and the theory with links to the original posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Sorry Pressie, I was disappointed to find this was false. No black budgie.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Pressie writes: I don't know the general theory of evolution. It's something foreign to me. I think that is a reference to;
quote: Further discussion on this probably belongs in the thread How do you define the Theory of Evolution?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024