Genetic Evidence of Major Changes in Body Shapes

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
you guys are really bein jerks, but ill just reply with... when did god ever say that animals couldnt mutate. who is to say that god isnt the cause behind this mutations? all it does is prove that things change and no one claims that things never change.

​

---

Creationism/Theology has alredy retreated to a position where "micro" evolution can occur, ruling out major changes in body plan. What this research shows is that major changes in body plan ARE allowed, & CAN happen. Macro evolution, no less.Did creation science allow this? No, This is why it is so relevant to the discussion.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
that proves little more than a few creationists were narrow minded.

​

---

No, it shows that "macro" evolution can occur. ALL YECs deny this.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i dont, thats what im saying!!! :-) i wont fully believe it as a fact until we observe it though.

​

---

1/ I'm not sure of your position? Are you a YEC? Do you accept macroevolution? Are you christian?2/ Macroevolution is exclusive of the YEC position, there isn't enough time, whether that position is yours or not. My comments aren't directed at you specifically, but the YEC movement in general. Again, this why this study is important. It shows macroevolution can occur.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Not at all...though the principle of mutations is still not quite understood,it does seem to be closely related to environemental concerns. It is possible that we used to mutate heavily at an earlier time and those mutations considerably slowed down when we reached the stage of thinking hominids with the capacity to modify our environement,thus reducing the stress it placed on our adaptive genes.

---

Probably not, mutations need to be culled by natural selection. Every organism in a species having too many mtations at one time will result in extinction.Different genes mutate at different rates, there is no evidence that there was a "fast" period, indeed, the problem is, that it is literally lethal.I'm not sure where you get the environment being responsible for mutations. It most certainly is responsible for some, but is it responsible for MOST mutations?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
we would have to be evolving ever generation greatly. there is a large difference between now and a hundred years ago.

​

---

What great difference is there betweeen now & 100 years ago, that involved the fixing of mutant alleles in the general population? This is what evolution is, after all (they don't have to be mutant, but large change over time means mutant genes).------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
I think so to a degree and this would certainly go a long way toward explaning the crustacean turning into a fly over time...as a result of its changing environement.

​

---

Natural selection is environment driven, the underlying mutation rate, by and large, isn't.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.