Always talking about micro-evolution?

Yeah, that's nice. I used to listen to DC Talk too.But what we were talking about is a scientific theory that explains the diversity of species on Earth through random mutation and natural selection.

Yeah, and you're an interesting person. Plus, I don't think DC Talk did that, at least not to my knowledge. And yeah, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what you're talking about. One thing I haven't entirely caught up on though would be which side you're toad-ally on. Oh, wait you're a frog. Oh well, they all come from the same species.Don't random mutation and natural selection kind of...contradict each other? I mean think about it. Random mutation, okay well almost all mutations are NOT good, and harm the organism, therefore through natural selection that organism will not live.

Hrm, I thought it was. Who else was big in the 90's? Jars of Clay? Petra? It was one of those Christian pop groups. I'll have you know that's a damn lie. Order Anura (frogs and toads) comprises 21 families, 301 genera, and over 3,450 different species of frogs and toads. (Animal Diversity, 2nd Ed., Hickman, Roberts, and Larson.)There's more similarity between humans and chimps than there is between your average frog and toad. No, in fact they compliment each other. Right, exactly. Leaving only organisms with nominal or beneficial mutations. Ergo, natural selection causes a change in allele frequencies in a population that results in asteady increase in "better" genes.Oh, by the way, most mutations have no effect on the organism. This is due to great redundancy in protien expression mechanisms.

Plowing people's hearts is a felony here in Texas.

Okay so lets see, a question for you, are all dogs from the same species? And how exactly would you define species? And are you trying to tell me that you think we came from chimps? Yeah, we also have DNA that is very close to that of pigs, did we come from pigs too?So, as you say the compliment each other, where is your information supporting it or is that all I get? If beneficial mutation and natural selection work together to make diversity, as I think you're saying then why is it that no new species can be created through these processes? And mutations/natural selection do not add DNA to create a new anything, it is actually resulting in a loss of DNA, if anything.Give me an example of these better "genes" that have been accumulated. I don't think they just come from a better-name brand store either.

Maybe. If anything they're a kind of ring species. Of course dogs are the result of artifical selection, not natural selection, so the regular rules may not apply. Exactly as biologists would - as a "reproductive community." Funny, I don't recall saying that. You wouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth, are you?We do share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, though. Biologically speaking a very recent one, in fact. No, but we share a common ancestor with them, too. A more distant one than chimps, because our DNA is not as similar to pigs as it is to chimps. You want me to substantiate that natural selection and random mutation work together? Sure: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.htmlBut you can prove it yourself with a simple math problem. take the numbers 1 through 10 and find the average. It should be 5 and one-half.Now, take out the bottom few numbers and see what happens to the average of what's left. No new species? Hogwash. We observe it all the time. Here's some, here: Observed Instances of SpeciationYou're rather misinformed. A number of mutations add new genetic material, sometimes duplicating entire sequences or even adding altogether novel base pairs. Here's an experiment that looked at evolution of bacteria over thousands of generations, from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, via PubMed:

quote:

---

Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria.

​

Papadopoulos D, Schneider D, Meier-Eiss J, Arber W, Lenski RE, Blot M.

​

Abteilung Mikrobiologie, Biozentrum, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland.

​

Molecular methods are used widely to measure genetic diversity within populations and determine relationships among species. However, it is difficult to observe genomic evolution in action because these dynamics are too slow in most organisms. To overcome this limitation, we sampled genomes from populations of Escherichia coli evolving in the laboratory for 10,000 generations. We analyzed the genomes for restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) using seven insertion sequences (IS) as probes; most polymorphisms detected by this approach reflect rearrangements (including transpositions) rather than point mutations. The evolving genomes became increasingly different from their ancestor over time. Moreover, tremendous diversity accumulated within each population, such that almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint after 10,000 generations. As has been often suggested, but not previously shown by experiment, the rates of phenotypic and genomic change were discordant, both across replicate populations and over time within a population. Certain pivotal mutations were shared by all descendants in a population, and these are candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find. More generally, these data show that the genome is highly dynamic even over a time scale that is, from an evolutionary perspective, very brief.

---

Slow down for a minute, Miss, and look at the recent threads on this very forum, and you can find some.
Four examples in the human species, just off the top of my head, are the mutation in Northern Europeans that confers lactose tolerance in adults, the hemoglobin C mutation in the Mossi of West Africa, the Western European mutation from the days of the Black Death that makes carriers largely immune to AIDS, and the mutation in a village in Italy that makes cholesterol a non-issue WRT heart disease.

Yes, very good of you. Just be careful how you discuss things with some of these folks. Sort of like the pharisees; - Matthew 23:4They expect you to "substantiate" almost every thing you say, then when you do, they blast the source as being an evolutionary heretic. (most of the creationist experts are EX-evolutionists who simply found no choice but admit that the theory of evolution has no provable mechanism for changing a microbe into a microbiologist. House cats to alley cats and little mice to big mice, yes. But no mechanism for macro-evolution).But, like the pharisees, they either won't substantiate anything (just lots of hot air and fallacy-laden arguments) but when they do, their sources of information are always infallible and absolutely irrefutable (so be prepared for ad hominem attacks if you dare point out flaws in their arguments!) Many of the people who post are highly respectable, but there are a handful who can't seem to keep from setting off fallacy alarms. Don't be offended by some of these guys; that's just how they are and can't help it.And yes, you did arrive at a good time because my time here is up! Yesss! The celebration is about to begin with my favorite drink!

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

Don't be like Skeptick. It's obvious that, unlike him, you have a keen intellect. Don't blunt it by refusing to see plain evidence put before you.Don't confuse the scrutiny of sources for ad hominem attack. Skeptickis just sore because he doesn't want people to know he fell for the creationist lies hook, line, and sinker. It's too embarrasing to try to hold Answers in Genesis up to actual scientific inquiry.Keep asking the questions you've been asking. Don't cop the samekind of attitude he did.

Yeah, I have seen quite a few fallacies already in these, not just on this forum. And I realize a lot of these points. Unfortunately so many people have been taught the secular humanistic views since they began school and are very attatched to them. Plus, I have to admit I really don't think I like this stuff much, because you never seem to find a single evolutionist willing to quote a creation website or hardly ever find a creationist quoting evolutionist websites. So, you have only biast opinions with only biast resources, and basically, since they won't agree with anything but evolution, there is a predicament.BTW fellas, what makes a blimp go up? (Hot Air) So what's holding you down!?!?

Actually Mr. Toad, as I prefer, I would have to say that it isn't creationist lies. Plus, Darwin himself, said that if we didn't find an overwhelming number of "inbetweens" then there is no argument for evolution. So, where are they? I haven't heard of any yet.Plus, how is it that somehow the odds of a world "just happening" and creating itself somehow are better than a couple dating methods being off when the "just happening" odds are so slim that its scientifically impossible.

Might I suggest that all take it a little slower? Looking to turn into a babble-fest.Also, might I suggest that "miss_smartie_pants_yes_um" go to her profile page, and adopt a little shorter name, that does not take up as much column width?{Added by edit: Maybe just taking the _' out, and substituting spaces MIGHT do the job. Not sure, but maybe the system will then spread the name over two lines.}Cheers to all,Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-17-2004]

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Hey Mr. Toad. I just thought of another question, and you said just keep asking them. So what if you're wrong? What if Evolution is wrong and there is a God?I know what happens if I am wrong and you are right-nothing. But what if YOU are wrong and I am right?P.S. I like my name whoever that was that said change it

That would be a forum administrator who forgot to put his official name on.He is looking at formatting issues with your name in the author frame of the post.[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-17-2004]

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

There is no connection between these too. Evolution could be wrong and there be a God or there not be a God. There isn't any connection.Evolution can be right and there can be a God or there can not be a God. There is no connection.