Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 91 of 314 (508405)
05-13-2009 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Trev777
05-12-2009 6:36 PM


Topic
The topic, as described in the first post of this thread:
quote:
Opponents to the theory of evolution often point out the lack of transitional fossils/organisms; I believe this is due to a misunderstanding of transitional species.
The theory of evolution argues that all life on earth is continually under change; it is never static. With this in mind, every organism can be seen as transitional. Some animals are more noticeably transitional than others. Alligators, for instance, live both on land and in water. Ostrichs are birds that can not fly and pinguins are birds that have adapted to swim. Are these not excellent examples of transitional organisms?
Please share your arguments for or against this idea and any other comments you may have; however, please stay on topic.
Please stick to the topic of transitional fossils and arguments for and against the proposition outlined above. Failure to stay on topic may result in receiving a suspension from posting. There are a variety of different topics that have been discussed here, please start new threads, or even better find existing threads that discuss the subject to post in.
Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Trev777, posted 05-12-2009 6:36 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 92 of 314 (508429)
05-13-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Trev777
05-12-2009 6:24 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Trev777 writes:
Mutations cause the downgrading of a species, not an upward progression and tends to eventually eliminate it.
See Evolution -A theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.
There are two problems with this citation.
First, it's a bare reference with no supporting explanation or argument. Replies may as well consist as, "The Origin of Species rebuts Denton," and that would be just as pointless. Rule 5 of the Forum Guidelines requires that people not make arguments through bare references (it refers to links instead of references, but the intent is clear):
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
But I'm curious. Did you cite Denton's book because you read it? Or did you cite it because you saw it used somewhere else to support the same argument you're making? If the latter then tch tch.
Second, Michael Denton no longer stands behind much of what he says in that book. He has changed his mind and now, like Michael Behe, is an IDer who accepts much of evolution and evolutionary history.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Trev777, posted 05-12-2009 6:24 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 314 (508476)
05-14-2009 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Trev777
05-12-2009 6:24 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Mutations cause the downgrading of a species, not an upward progression and tends to eventually eliminate it.
See Evolution -A theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.
Ten years or so after Denton wrote Evolution - A Theory In Crisis, he realized that he was wrong and admitted it publicly. See Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny:
It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.
However, I believe that your nonsense is off-topic --- this thread is for you to be wrong about transitional species. If you wish to be wrong about genetics, start another thread.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Trev777, posted 05-12-2009 6:24 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5428 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 94 of 314 (508539)
05-14-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by lyx2no
05-12-2009 7:14 PM


Re: WHAT
I ain't speaking to you, but thanks to RAZD and the others for their rebuffs.
No seriously heres a quote from Denton- "It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality which so mitigates against the idea of chance..In particular every field of fundemental biological research, ever increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever accelerating rate. The credibility of natural selection is weakened, therefore not only by the perfection we have already glimpsed by the expectation of further as yet undreampt of depths of ingenuity and complexity" (P342)
Concerning mutations, the problem here is the mathematics, they occur one in every 10million duplications of a DNA molecule. Our bodies have nearly 100 trillion cells so there is a good possibility of a couple of cells of a mutated form in any gene. The problem for evolution is when you require a series of related mutations to build a structure. Odds of getting 2 related mutations is 100 trillion, which would be far from producing a new structure. So then 3 related mutations -odds are a billion trillion. It was at the level of 4 related mutations that microbiologists gave up on the idea that mutations could explain why some bacteria are resistant to 4 different antibiotics at the same time. The odds were to great. But they discovered that using cultures routinely kept for long periods of time the bacteria were resistant to antibiotics, even before commercial antibiotics were invented. Genetic variability was built right into the bacteria. Was this by mutation -No, resistant forms were already present. Furthermore certain bacteria have little rings of DNA called plasmids that they trade around among themselves, and they passed on their resistance to antibiotics in that way. It wasn't mutation and asexual reproduction at all, just ordinary recombination and variation within kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2009 7:14 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 7:54 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 96 by lyx2no, posted 05-14-2009 9:27 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2009 8:37 PM Trev777 has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 95 of 314 (508553)
05-14-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Trev777
05-14-2009 6:12 PM


Re: WHAT
When folks start throwing out those huge numbers which purport to "prove" that evolution is impossible, I like to refer them to the following:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell
Researchchannel.org
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
Perhaps the problem is that the mathematicians who come up with those gross numbers, and the creationists who delight in spreading them around, are not very good at biology and have missed the essential point of how mutations actually work in a population. The above video featuring a lecture by a biologist provides an example of how genetic networks are actually robust instead of unlikely--contrary to what some mathematicians have come up with.
Here is a simple example of two different ways of computing odds:
Your task is to roll 25 dice and come up with all sixes.
--You can roll all 25 dice until your arm falls off and the mountains melt down and you'll probably never come up with 25 sixes. Or...
--You can roll the 25 dice and keep all the sixes, rolling again only those which are not sixes. Using this approach you'll be home in time for dinner.
The mathematicians who produce those trillions upon trillions odds are using the first method. (Or, as one creationist posted repeatedly on another website, the odds against evolution are 1720 against. He couldn't understand why folks didn't take him seriously.)
But biological evolution within populations is much more akin to the second method.
Given this, I tend to doubt those huge scare numbers when they are posted by creationists.
Perhaps you can back up those numbers with actual peer-reviewed biological data?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Trev777, posted 05-14-2009 6:12 PM Trev777 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by IchiBan, posted 05-15-2009 2:40 AM Coyote has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 96 of 314 (508570)
05-14-2009 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Trev777
05-14-2009 6:12 PM


Anything on Topic
I ain't speaking to you.
Yet another example of your capacity for contradiction.
Genetic variability was built right into the bacteria. Was this by mutation -No, resistant forms were already present.
This indicates that you are under the impression that the mutations don't occur until a change in the environment calls for them. That is not the case. A particular mutation might have happened a hundred thousand generations ago that was harmless and meaningless until a change in the environment, per chance, made it useful (or harmful). Say a gene is modified so that the protein it makes can now also bind with a certain chemical. A thousand years later an antibiotic is discovered that, per chance, uses that very chemical. Any germ that just happens to have the modified version of the gene can render the antibiotic ineffective. Guess what happens next Cha-ching selection for the modified gene. Now how hard was that?
Aside from it having nothing to do with the topic, transitional species, why, if I can think of a naturalistic way for something to occur within a matter of minutes, do you not think evolution couldn't stumble upon it with trillions of chances over millions of generations, and even go so far as to call it impossible?
BTW, this is an open forum. If you're speaking, you're speaking to everyone.
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.
Edited by lyx2no, : Remove redundancy.

It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men. Spock, Mirror Mirror

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Trev777, posted 05-14-2009 6:12 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4938 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 97 of 314 (508608)
05-15-2009 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Coyote
05-14-2009 7:54 PM


Re: WHAT
I watched the online Online lecture video awhile back and found it had some lame jokes, was unconvincing and he made some math errors IIRC.
But biological evolution within populations is much more akin to the second method
So you say anyway.
(Or, as one creationist posted repeatedly on another website, the odds against evolution are 1 720 against. He couldn't understand why folks didn't take him seriously.)
What does what one creationist supposedly said on another website have anything to do with what what you are saying here? He could have just as easily made a typo, or did not not know about the sup tag. But you like to capitalize on that and interject it into your discussion every chance you get.
Given this, I tend to doubt those huge scare numbers when they are posted by creationists.
Of course, you are an evolutionist with an axe to grind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 7:54 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by cavediver, posted 05-16-2009 6:29 AM IchiBan has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 98 of 314 (508616)
05-15-2009 4:47 AM


Topic!!!
Trev777, Coyote, IchiBan: A 24 hour suspension for them. Please take this discussion to an appropriate thread.
eg: Please explain mutations
Probability-based arguments
Or perhaps, while waiting for the suspension to lapse you might consider composing a new topic proposal.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 99 of 314 (508733)
05-15-2009 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Trev777
05-14-2009 6:12 PM


Mutation drives transitions
Thanks, Trev777.
No seriously heres a quote from Denton- ...
Which is an appeal to authority, a common logical fallacy. Your quote is of one persons opinion, and curiously it, like your opinion, is useless in controlling reality. Life happens.
Concerning mutations, the problem here is the mathematics, ...
It appears that you did not learn your lesson about mathematical models from the disaster of your population model's internal self-destruction.
The issue is not how many mutations are deleterious, or how often they occur: somewhere between 75% and 99% (depending on medical and nutritional conditions where you live) of human conceptions fail to make it to the swaddling cloth. Obviously a lot of mutations end up killing many many organisms. Also obviously, this has not slowed down the population growth of humans (even if we haven't reached 1.7 trillion yet). Why? Because successful phenotypes live a long and (sexually) productive life, while these unsuccessful phenotypes are eliminated early enough to allow the parents to attempt reproduction again, almost immediately following the previous failure/s.
So once again your mathematical model fails to model reality - what math are you going to try next? The argument from improbability? Let me save you some time: see thread the old improbable probability problem.
Now let's consider your mathematical argument about the high distribution of mutations that make an organism different from the parent. Then we will note (as has been mentioned before) that the difference is neither good nor bad, higher nor lower, improved nor degraded, just different from the parent. What tests the effectiveness of the mutation is how it affects the individuals ability to survive and reproduce.
We'll consider two populations of a species living in neighboring ecosystems, divided by geological formations (rivers, hills, etc) such that mingling of the two populations is rare compared to the mingling (reproduction) within each population.
We'll consider that one population is well suited to it's ecosystem, but that the main food source is poorly distributed in the second. There is enough for the population to survive it's initial colonization of the ecosystem from the other one, but it limits the population growth in that second ecosystem.
We'll consider that there is another food source that is rare in the first ecosystem but dominant in the second, and that the organisms are adapted to be able to eat it with marginal success.
Then we'll consider that - with all those mutations that are occurring - one mutation makes an organism in the second population worse at eating the primary food source, but better at eating this secondary food source.
In the first population, this would be a deleterious mutation, yes? But in the second population it is a beneficial mutation, as now it can benefit from a dominant food source. The improved survival of this individual with this mutation should ensure a long and (re)productive life, yes? As such it will pass the mutation on to offspring that will also be successful at using the dominant food supply in the second ecosystem.
These organisms are transitional organisms, developing away from the ancestral population.
Thus the preponderance of semi-deleterious mutations within a population can result in the formation of secondary populations that are better adapted to different ecosystems from their ancestors, and the mutations actually drive the transition of the second population to be different from the parent one.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Trev777, posted 05-14-2009 6:12 PM Trev777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Trev777, posted 05-16-2009 5:51 PM RAZD has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 100 of 314 (508781)
05-16-2009 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by IchiBan
05-15-2009 2:40 AM


Re: WHAT
Of course, you are an evolutionist with an axe to grind.
And you appear to be an idiot with a perverse infatuation with Coyote. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is finding your obsession more than a little freaky...
But anyway, you seem to have a complete zero-content to any of your posts so I was wondering about this:
I watched the online Online lecture video awhile back and found it had some lame jokes, was unconvincing and he made some math errors IIRC.
Well, I'm a mathematician, Professor Odell started life in mathematics although is now in biology, and you appear to be claiming some level of ability. What are these errors, as I haven't found anything obviou yet? Off-topic here of course, but just give me a quick reply to let me know you are serious, and I will start a new thread.
ABE: Oops, just seen Mod's warning perhaps I should just start the new thread anyway...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by IchiBan, posted 05-15-2009 2:40 AM IchiBan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Admin, posted 05-16-2009 7:03 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 101 of 314 (508787)
05-16-2009 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by cavediver
05-16-2009 6:29 AM


Re: WHAT
cavediver writes:
And you appear to be an idiot...
You're becoming increasingly intolerant of perceived idiocy. You might consider a little self-censorship before moderators have to begin providing it for you. The knowledge content of your posts is high, but that doesn't excuse this.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by cavediver, posted 05-16-2009 6:29 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5428 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 102 of 314 (508850)
05-16-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by RAZD
05-15-2009 8:37 PM


Re: Mutation drives transitions ?
Hi Razd , etc
If mutations can accidentally add information, they may improove functionality. If genes were inadvertently duplicated and both copies changed by mutations would there be the prospect of more complex kinds? The problem is -natural selection is a blind process that cannot see ahead to select a new improoved function. If mutations were the first step towards for e.g. a wing then natural selection would eliminate it as having no function. The formation of a wing would involve a hugh amount of genetic information, and the idea that each chance increment being more fit than the last is statistically impossible.
Genetic mutations can involve a single nucleotide or displacement of a whole gene within a chromosome. Since they are a change in a highly complex system, each involves a loss of information. Over generations there is gradual deterioration. In time unless the mutation can be selected out this leads to extinction of the species.We humans have over 3500 mutational disorders, hemophilia, cancers, ageing process etc. The reason we don't show up many of these disorders is we have 2 sets of genes -from each parent, the good genes cover up the bad. But the idea of two close relations marrying (because they were both intelligent) , to create intelligent offspring would be foolish as the dangers of this would be far greater.
To change an ape-like gene into a human-like gene you need to know the whole DNA information sequence in advance. Natural selection being blind, would produce an increasingly less fit ape-like gene and would therefore be selected against.
I won't mention maths again incase I get suspended , but evolution just dosen't add up.
-God Bless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2009 8:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by lyx2no, posted 05-16-2009 7:49 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2009 9:54 PM Trev777 has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 103 of 314 (508858)
05-16-2009 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Trev777
05-16-2009 5:51 PM


Mutation and Environment Drive Transitions
The problem is -natural selection is a blind process that cannot see ahead to select a new improoved function.
This is merely an argument for irreducible complexity. None of the steps that went into making what was to eventually become a wing was without contemporary value. To be sure, a harmful mutation will be selected against: like wearing a Yankee's cap in Boston; but, that's neutral in most environments and beneficial in some. There is no shortage of environments on this ever changing planet.
natural selection would eliminate it as having no function.
NS does not eliminate mutations that have no function. It eliminates mutations that are harmful. NS recognizes the cost/benefit must be positive, but if the cost is meager the benefit needn't be pronounced.
the idea that each chance increment being more fit than the last is statistically impossible.
Only if one is restricted to a single environment could this possibly be the case. The short limbs of the Inuit would be a disaster on a basketball court, but throw one of Da Vinci's scythemobiles into the mix and you got yourself a whole 'nother ball game.
each involves a loss of information.
Not! What makes a bit of information in a gene information is that it produces a secondary effect. If a change in the gene causes a different secondary effect it is still information. Environmental pressures determine whether the new information is boon, bust or blazé.
In time unless the mutation can be selected out this leads to extinction of the species.
They are selected out if they decrease the likelihood of reproduction. Genes go extinct regularly. They don't have to take the species with it.
To change an ape-like gene into a human-like gene you need to know the whole DNA information sequence in advance.
Unlike videos of ones Mum stepping in dog poop in her Sunday shoes, this doesn't get better with repetition. We were not a goal. Evolution didn't care where it ended up. You throw a dart at random and stand amazed at the specialness of the spot it hit neglecting that it had to hit somewhere.
I won't mention maths again incase I get suspended , but evolution just dosen't add up.
It is your use of pseudo-math that is objectionable. Your use of "statistically impossible" at the end of the second paragraph is sound and fury signifying nothing. How do you know what the odds are? I see you making one after the next erroneous assumption. If these are what you're plugging into your equations you're doing your own math, right? then it's not surprising that you keep getting answers that do not comport to the reality right before your eye.
Edited by lyx2no, : Typos.

It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men.
Spock: Mirror Mirror

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Trev777, posted 05-16-2009 5:51 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 104 of 314 (508869)
05-16-2009 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Trev777
05-16-2009 5:51 PM


Re: Mutation drives transitions ?
Hi Trev777
If mutations can accidentally add information, they may improove functionality.
Mutations change the "information" - there is no "improove"(SIC) involved.
If genes were inadvertently duplicated ...
That would be a mutation that obviously adds "information" in the way that 1 + 1 adds information.
... and both copies changed by mutations ...
The probability is that the mutations would be different, and what would be the difference between that and one mutation?
... would there be the prospect of more complex kinds?
It would already be more complex due to the duplication.
The problem is -natural selection is a blind process that cannot see ahead to select a new improoved function.
Seeing as that is NOT what natural selection, as used in the science of evolution says happens, I congratulate you on showing that a false (straw man) version is impossible. (clap clap clap).
If mutations were the first step towards for e.g. a wing then natural selection would eliminate it as having no function.
Can you point to one thing in a bat wing that is not present in your arm? A bone, a muscle, skin, ligaments, blood vessels, any element, any feature?
The formation of a wing would involve a hugh amount of genetic information, and the idea that each chance increment being more fit than the last is statistically impossible.
Nope. See how assertion based on opinion works?
Now consider the flying squirrel as a transitional stage between a small shrew like tree living insectivore and a bat -- what is statistically impossible about a flying squirrel?
... the last is statistically impossible.
Curiously, nothing is "statistically impossible" -- if it's impossible, then statistics has nothing to do with it, and if it's statistical it's not impossible.
Genetic mutations can involve a single nucleotide or displacement of a whole gene within a chromosome.
And anything in between, and even more, up to and including duplication of the entire genome (see polyploidy).
Since they are a change in a highly complex system, each involves a loss of information.
Interestingly, the complexity of the system has no bearing on whether the mutation adds or deletes "information" from the system.
Curiously, one type of mutation can duplicate a section of DNA, while another type of mutation can delete a section of DNA, thus it is entirely possible that a second mutation would delete a previously duplicated section and we end up at the starting point. Now, tell me, how does each involve loss of information?
Fascinatingly, we have samples of this actually occurring:
Newsroom - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis
quote:
Walking sticks regained flight after 50 million years of winglessness
Maxwell and his collaborators at Brigham Young University discovered that some species lost the ability to fly at one point of their evolution and then re-evolved it 50 million years later.
And it is not just ONE such instance, but several. See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)

Walkingstick insects originally started out as wingless insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.

And some gained wings (red). And diversified.

And some lost wings (blue again). And diversified.

And one gained wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

So again, how does each of these mutations involve loss of information?
Over generations there is gradual deterioration.
So are the walkingsticks with wings a "deteriorated" version of walkingsticks without wings, or are the walkingsticks without wings a "deteriorated" version of walkingsticks with wings ... and what about the one that was\wasn't\was winged?
In time unless the mutation can be selected out this leads to extinction of the species.
Except, of course, when it leads to speciation instead, where the old species no longer exists because it has been modified into a new species by these mutations.
Here's a question for you to consider: if species only dwindle and die out, where do the new species come from?
We humans have over 3500 mutational disorders, hemophilia, cancers, ageing process etc. The reason we don't show up many of these disorders is we have 2 sets of genes -from each parent, the good genes cover up the bad.
Unless, of course, the gene is dominant or you get a duplication of the mutated gene from both parents (see sickle-cell anemia)
No, the reason they don't show up that often is because they are rare. Meanwhile we have many more mutations that are neutral (such as in eye color) and some that are even beneficial (giving immunity to diseases and making the person less likely to have heart failure).
But the idea of two close relations marrying (because they were both intelligent) , to create intelligent offspring would be foolish as the dangers of this would be far greater.
Strangely, intelligence has nothing to do with it, just the higher probability of having a bad gene duplicated than occurs in the rest of the population. Curiously, if both parents did not carry such bad genes, but did carry preventative genes it would act to reinforce those beneficial ones in the offspring.
To change an ape-like gene into a human-like gene you need to know the whole DNA information sequence in advance.
Nope. We have between 95% and 98% similar genes with chimpanzees (depending on how you count it) now that we DO know the whole DNA sequence of both species, so very little would need to be changed. Even less would be needed to make a half-way hominid.
Natural selection being blind, would produce an increasingly less fit ape-like gene and would therefore be selected against.
Or, being blind to future consequences, it would produce an increasingly more fit organism for the environment and the survival+reproductive ecology it lives in, because the ones that are better able to survive and breed, curiously, are the ones who end up surviving and breeding.
I won't mention maths again incase I get suspended , but evolution just dosen't add up.
You won't get suspended for mentioning maths, you will get suspended for making unsupported assertions and posting a lot of false information with no regard to fact and reality.
Notice that, just as your mathematical assertions were shown to be drastically wrong, almost every statement you made in your post is (a) unsupported by evidence and (b) wrong.
Does this make you wonder at all about your sources of information? Do you get the feeling you are in the gunfight at the OK corral and they gave you a cap pistol? If it doesn't make you question your sources-- why not? Is it really critical thinking to question evolution but to give creationist propaganda a pass?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Trev777, posted 05-16-2009 5:51 PM Trev777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Trev777, posted 05-18-2009 5:41 PM RAZD has replied

  
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5428 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 105 of 314 (509096)
05-18-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
05-16-2009 9:54 PM


Re: Mutation drives transitions ?
Hi RAZD ;-
Thanks for the detailed analysis, you cannot conclude my evidence as all wrong, as you are biased from an evolutionary viewpoint just as I am biased from a Creationist viewpoint. The walkingstick insects are still a "kind " no matter what their diversification.
The problem of the incredible complexity of some creatures on the lower branches of the evolutionary tree of life vanishes if you abandon the assumption that they evolved. New Scientist(June2007) says - "Recent findings suggest that some of our very early ancestors were far more sophisticated than we have given them credit for. If so then much of that precocious complexity has been lost by subsequent generations as they evolved into new species. The whole concept of a gradualist tree, with one thing branching off after another and the last to branch off, the vertebrates, being the most complex, is wrong...The entire tree of life has been built on the assumption that evolution entails increasing complexity." So loss of features is the key to understanding evolution they say. " Proponents of this idea argue that classical phylogeny has been built no rotten foundations, and tinkering with it will not put it right. Instead they say we need to rethink the process of evolution itself."
Concerning chimps and vocalisation, evolution suggests our language evolved from gestures not vocalisation. Babies use gestures before they learn words. But a baby's throat is designed so that speech is only possible once danger of choking over food is past. Then the larynx drops to a suitable position for speech. This drop dosen't happen with primates.
I'm at the OK corrall, and my cap pistol - but Ive got Clint Eastwood with me!
I'll get back to you about sickle cell anemia.
God Bless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2009 9:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by bluescat48, posted 05-18-2009 5:57 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 05-18-2009 6:18 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 108 by Lithodid-Man, posted 05-18-2009 6:29 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2009 8:08 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 05-19-2009 9:37 AM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2009 12:49 AM Trev777 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024