General Theory of Evolution

Originally posted by TrueCreation:--'Creationism' isn't even a topic of debate in science, it has nothing to do with science! I have not made this assertion, this again shows your lack in knowledge for what you are dealing with when you struggle discussion with me.Adding god to the equation is the same as speaking of Creationism.

"State of topic discussion noted - Door now found to be creaking towards "closed" - Will the movement of the door be stopped? - Only time will tell.""I'd like to request that everyone calm the hell down, take a step back, breathe deeply, and quit with the ad homs? We're not adding anything to the discussion, here. Thanks."
--I had been hoping that nos's highly pervasive off-topic would soon come to a halt, however he seems to enjoy continuing discussions without any approach to science. I will no longer reply to nos's posts in this thread as this is the case. Forgive me for getting slightly caught up with his attitude.I will quote his segment which seems to be the most recent post that is relevant to this discussion:

quote:

---

"Now, before you go and misquote me, I am not saying that THERE WAS NO GOD WHO CREATED THE EARTH, just saying that there is no evidence that I have seen that has led me to conclude this is what happened."
--Great, that's nice, we must agree to disagree, however I have asked that you supply me with a considerable proposal for supportive discussion pertaining to your accusations for the non-existence of a 'theory of creation'. See my last posts for more detail.

---

--[Edit] - Then again, this may need a topic on its own.. seeing it is rather different from the ToE. I don't think this topic need be closed though.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-03-2002]

quote:

---

Exactly my point. The DNA of the fast animals is already in the genepool of the multipurpose genome. A bit of shuffling, a bit of (non-)random mutations and voila a "new" faster population after a couple of generations! New genes? NO. Different organisation? Maybe. Distinct gene regulation? Sure.

---

Unfortunately, I think you missed my point. In that particular example, the phenotypical traits for "fast" and "slow" were already present in the genome. I certainly agree that the gradual shift in frequency between "fast" and "slow" alleles in the population under selection pressure doesn't represent new genetic material. However, these genes are not "turned on" by selection - they are already expressed phenotypical variations. However, the variations are introduced by random mutation - not directed by the environment. If random mutation HAD NOT already produced the variation, there would have been nothing for natural selection to act upon in the first place. If you look at it in a different way, if there were no variation - no "fast" alleles that provided an advantage in this case - the population would go extinct. Since we can see this type of local extinction occurring regularly (c.f., "sanctuary effect" and "island effect" in the context of deforestation, for instance), this is a pretty solid statement. Hence, your concept of a multipurpose genome that provides genes which are "turned on" due to environmental effects has NOT been observed.

quote:

---

Yes, I remember. It was a joke, wasn't it? And that is why everyone is wearing Nikes, nowadays?

---

Yes, it is a joke. However, it is quite illustrative of how natural selection works. Consider, in context: if bear predation was a significant selection pressure and the posession of tennis shoes (the Nike trait?) was the variation that gave an organism increased marginal fitness against non-tennis-shoe-wearers, then YES, everyone would at some point be wearing Nikes - because everyone who didn't have them would have been eaten. Of course, that means the bears would either die out OR a lucky mutation would give them some advantage (e.g., roller-skates) in order to keep up the evolutionary arms race. Losers in evolution are called "extinct". Our bears would accidently have to have received roller-skates to survive. If they didn't, they'd be a historical footnote.