Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)

Hi Rhain, depends what you mean by perfect.
in humans the number of chromosomes of the newly replicated individual consist of 23 from each parent, so the new individual should have characteristics of both parents which gives them their individuality.If thats not perfect, then what is? prehistoric creatures are still alive today and havent changed their form...the frill shark and goblin shark are recent examples of being found alive.So why havnt they mutated after millions of years? perhaps the same way a wolfhound and a chihuahua does. That is exactly what we see. If a human gets 1 extra chromosome, it becomes a down syndrom with sever mental retardation and many physical abnormalities. Spontaneous abortions are believed to be the result of the fetus lacking a chromosome. So, in humans, it is impossible to be born with an incorrect chromosome number and be fitter then ones parents. Yes i realise that, but I also have exactly 46 chromosomes which is why I am capable of reproducing...anything less and i wouldnt have survived, anything more and I wouldnt be able to reproduce.

This is exactly how genetics work and i gave a similar example in Msg 183:"Milislav Demerec, at Carnegie Institution in Cold Spring Harbor, New York conducted experiments using colon bacteria and Streptomycin. His findings showed that no change in heredity was brought about by the streptomycin treatment. What it did was killed the bacteria that did not have any immunity. He found that about one cell in every thousand million was naturally resistant in every generation he produced whether they had been exposed or not.When the nonresistant strains died out, the resistant cells lived and brought forth progeny and dominated the population growth. But among them about thirty-seven cells out of every thousand million produced were of the basic type, sensitive to streptomycin. When he reversed the experiment by removing the surviving population into untreated broth, the nonresistant strain began to flourish again and dominated the population while the resistant strain continued to appear as at the start, about once every thousand million times.His experiments explain why disease epidemics can wipe out most of a population, yet leave some untouched due to their having a natural resistance to the particular disease germs involved. Its all about genetics." the problem is that this isnt an example of 'mutation' its an example of how 'genetics' work and how its presence in one individual can show up in some but not all at different times.You call it mutation, i call it genetics. Yes, I sure do.

Hi, Peg. Because people like you, who should be coming up with those reasons, think it's incredibly clever of them to instead try to shift the burden of proof onto an evolutionist, who's obviously perfectly content to continue to labor under the null hypothesis until someone like you comes up with a reason to doubt the null hypothesis.----- Perhaps this entire subtopic would have made more sense in the "Grand Theory of Life" thread. I hope, by running you through some of the history of evolutionary biology, I can help you appreciate the notion that "evolution" isn't just one, simple idea, but a grand amalgamation of many ideas.Speciation is just one of those many ideas, often inseparable from the idea of reproduction isolation. But, in different circles, they use different criteria to distinguish "species": reproductive isolation isn't always the gold standard. But, the most important purpose in even attempting to classify things as "species" is simply to aid in communication of information among scientists.----- First of all, no two dog breeds that I am aware of are incompatible for genetic reasons: the only reason I've ever heard for incompatibility is size.Second, why should they be considered the same "kind" if they can't interbreed? Isn't the inability to interbreed the standard by which we both decide to differentiate our species/kinds?----- Because you set your standard for differentiating "kinds," and the standard you chose was ability to interbreed.You can't weasel your way out of living up to your own standard by pointing out examples of other people who don't live up to your standard.So, just because they don't call reproductively-isolated dogs different "species," doesn't mean you are justified in not calling reproductively-isolated sea gulls different "kinds."For your information, evolutionists don't really have a say in the division of dogs into breeds or varieties: dog-show people have claimed that right. And, as far as I'm aware, they do not work under a paradigm of classification in which reproductive isolation is a meaningful characteristic.And, finally, evolutionists do not suffer from the illusion that our categorization systems will ever neatly or perfectly describe the complex patterns of speciation and biodiversity that we see in nature.In contrast, creationists do think their system should be able to neatly categorize organisms. And, they may perhaps find some way to do so in the future (I doubt it), but the example of ring species shows that reproductive isolation is not going to be a valid means for neatly categorizing organisms.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Peg. No.You forgot the part where you know ahead of time what the bacteria's genotype is, and you know that that genotype is not resistant to the phage. Since bacteria only reproduce by cloning, all bacteria in the lawn will be of the exact same genotype, unless some of them mutate.Thus, the appearance of resistant bacteria in that lawn can only be the result of mutation.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your claim requires that the chromosome replicate itself perfectly every single time. Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

---

​

depends what you mean by perfect.

---

Let us not play dumb.

quote:

---

in humans the number of chromosomes of the newly replicated individual consist of 23 from each parent, so the new individual should have characteristics of both parents which gives them their individuality.

​

If thats not perfect, then what is?

---

Let us not play dumb. "Perfect" would mean that every genetic sequence in the child, every gene, every intron, can be found in the parents: Absolutely no mutations of any kind. No point substitutions, no insertions, no deletions, no repetitions, no frame shifts, no nothing. Every sequence of codons in the child can be found in either the father's chromosomal sequence or the mother's.Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

quote:

---

prehistoric creatures are still alive today

---

Incorrect. Creatures that are alive today are not the same as those that were alive hundreds of thousands of years ago. Their gross morphology may be similar, but their fine structure is not and for when we can find genetic sequences, we find those have changed, too.

quote:

---

and havent changed their form

---

Incorrect. They have changed their form. Not so much that an untrained observer such as yourself would notice, but then most humans think all squirrels look alike. It takes someone who is trained in the morphology to be able to notice the changes.

quote:

---

the frill shark and goblin shark are recent examples of being found alive.

---

Except they don't look like their ancient ancestors. As an untrained observer, you will be hard-pressed to see the differences, but someone trained in the morphology will be able to show you the changes that have arisen over the generations.

quote:

---

So why havnt they mutated after millions of years?

---

They have. What on earth makes you think they haven't? Surely you aren't suggesting that mutations must cause drastic changes in morphology, are you? Have you forgotten about selection so quickly? When selection pressures are strong, morphology will be conserved even though underlying mutations are still taking place.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You really think an Irish Wolfhound and a Chihuahua are capable of breeding?

​

Ah, but you're referring to simple conjugation, so I ask you once again, how does a ring species fit into your scheme?

---

​

perhaps the same way a wolfhound and a chihuahua does.

---

No. Do you even know what a ring species is? An Irish Wolfhound and a Chihuahua will still be capable of conjugation of their gametes. But the ends of the ring species cannot achieve that.By your logic, that is impossible. And yet, that is precisely what we observe.Why would you have us lie about it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you going to say that it is always, no chance of deviation, result in less fitness? That it is impossible for chromosomal variations to result in equal or increased fitness?

---

​

That is exactly what we see.

---

Incorrect. The E. coli experiment proves you wrong. Not only once but twice. Mutation results in increased fitness: The first time when the bacteria mutate to survive the phage infection and the second time when the phage mutate to gain a new host specificity. In both cases, it results in increased fitness because the generations survive to continue to reproduce.That's the entire concept behind antibiotic resistance: Mutations result in increased fitness to the environment.Or are you saying there is no such thing as antibiotic resistance?

quote:

---

If a human gets 1 extra chromosome, it becomes a down syndrom with sever mental retardation and many physical abnormalities.

---

Incorrect. Plants go through polyploidy all the time. Those gigantic strawberries you get at the market? They're the result of not just an extra chromosome but rather wholesale duplication of the entire chromosomal package. Rather than having one set of chromosomes, they have two or three or even more. They're still quite fertile, quite capable of reproduction, and given that humans like them so much, they tend to be the ones that get selected to reproduce.What makes you think that the only way to increase chromosomal number is by complete duplication of a chromosome? Looking at our chromosomes, it appears that some of them broke apart and then acquired genetic mutations that inserted new material. Certainly in the case of chromosome 2, it is a fusion of the 2p and 2q chromosomes that are found in other primates.There are plenty of ways of changing chromosomal number that aren't detrimental to the organism.Take Przewalski's Horse. It has a different number of chromosomes than common horses: 66 for Przewalski compared to 64 for common horses. And yet, they can interbreed.Guess how many chromosomes the offspring of a common horse/Przewalski horse has?Hint: It is neither 64 nor 66.Why would you have us lie about this?

quote:

---

Spontaneous abortions are believed to be the result of the fetus lacking a chromosome. So, in humans, it is impossible to be born with an incorrect chromosome number and be fitter then ones parents.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you?Hint: What aneuploidy might you have right now and not even know it because you've never bothered to test for it and it doesn't present itself as that unusual?

quote:

---

Yes i realise that, but I also have exactly 46 chromosomes

---

Are you sure? Have you actually had a genetic test to determine that? There are some aneuploidy traits you'd never know you had unless you deliberately went looking for them. Are you sure you don't have one?

quote:

---

which is why I am capable of reproducing

---

And the aneuploidy trait I'm thinking of leaves you fertile. Are you sure you don't have it?

quote:

---

anything less and i wouldnt have survived, anything more and I wouldnt be able to reproduce.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you?We see various ploidy variations happening all the time across all species without there being any barrier to fertility or fitness. Have you bothered to check your chromosomal makeup to determine that you don't carry one?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

This is exactly how genetics work

---

But the example I gave is of evolution. According to you, genetics and evolution are incompatible. So how is it that evolution can be shown to occur precisely and specifically because of genetics?

quote:

---

the problem is that this isnt an example of 'mutation'

---

Incorrect. It is precisely an example of mutation. Remember: All the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor. Therefore, if there is no mutation, then the entire lawn is genetically identical. But if the entire lawn is genetically identical, then absolutely none of them should survive the infection of T4 phage.But some colonies do survive.Therefore, there must have been mutation.And, indeed, when we sequence the genome of the survivors and compare it to the genome of the originating ancestor, we find mutations.If you claim there are no mutations, then please explain how identical genomes have different reactions to infection by T4 phage.As I mentioned in my post, you need to examine the case of bacteria that evolved the ability to digest nylon oligimers. It is the result of a single frameshift mutation.Or are you saying that there was no such mutation? That the scientists who examined this were incompetent fools at best, evil liars at worst?

quote:

---

its an example of how 'genetics' work

---

You do understand that genetics includes mutation, yes?We're back to the question you tried to play dumb to:Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

quote:

---

and how its presence in one individual can show up in some but not all at different times.

---

Incorrect. The bacteria necessarily act as a group if there is no mutation: Either all live or all die because they are all descended from the same singular ancestor.So please explain why genetically identical organisms have one live and one die when infected with T4 phage.Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

quote:

---

You call it mutation, i call it genetics.

---

Mutation is part and parcel of genetics.Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So do you still stand by your claim?

---

​

Yes, I sure do.

---

Then you did the experiment, yes?If not, what makes you think you're in any position to stand by your claim?Please explain how two genetically identical organisms will have one live and one die when infected by T4 phage? Especially when the ones who live always seem to be clumped together? If it were completely independent of any chromosomal mutation, then the bacteria that would survive infection would be scattered throughout the lawn uniformly.But that isn't what we see. Instead, the survivors always appear in colonies, as if they had inherited their resistance via mutations in the chromosome.Why is it your explanation looks exactly like what mutation would cause and yet not be mutation?Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

thats not truecreationists simply adhere to the model of genetics and hereditary that comes from the parent paira dog will always produce a dog and a cat will alway produce a catthey will not morph into some new kind of animal...they will continue to be dogs and cats. Evolution would have us believe that these animals will eventually go thru so much change that they will become a different type of animal with different traits and different habits, instincts and dietsCreationists accept that variety exists within the different 'kinds' of animals, and this is due to genetics. this is factual and has been proved beyond doubt that its an accurate description of life and why it changes. Its in harmony with the Genesis account and its in harmony with what we see in nature.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

a dog will always produce a dog and a cat will alway produce a cat

---

Then are lions and ocelots both "cats"?And how do ring species fit into this scheme?

quote:

---

Evolution would have us believe that these animals will eventually go thru so much change that they will become a different type of animal with different traits and different habits, instincts and diets

---

That's what the fossil record clearly shows. It's how we have the transition from Hyracotherium to Equus.Why would you have us lie about this?

quote:

---

Creationists accept that variety exists within the different 'kinds' of animals, and this is due to genetics.

---

Indeed, but this is only after they spent decades indicating that there couldn't be any variation at all. When it became clear that speciation could actually happen, they simply moved the "kind" definition up the taxonomic tree.It's why they came up with the false "micro-"/"macro-" distinction.

quote:

---

this is factual and has been proved beyond doubt that its an accurate description of life and why it changes.

---

There's not a single word in that statement that's true. The exact opposite is true: The chromosome does not replicate perfectly but instead mutates to provide different morphologies. Those genetic mutations are then subjected to the selection pressures of the environment. Eventually, the accumulated mutations cause enough morphological change that a new species arises.Question: Do you think speciation has ever been observed?Question: If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

bluejay, did you even read what happened in the experiment?every new generation, whether they had been exposed to the toxin or not, had a number that were naturally resistantthe conclusion of the experiment wasnt mutation, it was hereditary that was causing some to have immunity.Much like traits that show up in a family line, one person may have blonde hair, but it doesnt show up in the decendents until some stage down the track...then every now and then the someone gets the blonde hair.But hey, if you want to call it mutation, i'll call it mutation for the sake of it.

Hi, Peg. Not only that, I've actually witnessed it!----- Okay, but you started the experiment with a colony that was not resistant. Did you miss that part?Look, if you doubt this, start with just one non-resistant bacterium (or maybe a handful). If you grow a huge lawn of bacteria from that one bacterium, you will still get some that are resistant. That is, you will end up with some bacteria that are genetically distinct from their parents, even though they are literally clones!Do you understand this?----- This is due to dominance/recessivity, which is a side effect of having two sets of chromosomes, allowing a dominant allele to mask a recessive allele.Bacteria do not have two sets of chromosomes, so this does not happen in bacteria.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi Peg,The bacteria experiment being discussed is one that is repeated multiple times yearly at biology labs around the world. The phenomenon is extremely well understood.We can also analyze the genetic code of the bacteria involved. This means that we can literally compare the genetic code of the original parent bacterium with the code of the resistant versions that arise during the experiment, and we can actually directly observe the differences - even though the bacteria reproduce simply by making copies of themselves.So let's use an example. Let's represent the genetic code of a bacterium with a sentence, and let each word represent a gene."The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog."This sentence bacteria reproduces by making exact copies of itself. We know the process of cell division quite well, and the process can be demonstrated at will.This means that all subsequent offspring of our single bacterium will be identical to the original. There are no other parents to provide genetic information (as in sexual reproduction).But sometimes the copying mechanism makes an error. The result is an offspring like this:"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy god."Obviously, this change was minor - "dog" became "god." The copying process simply switched the places of two base pairs in our imaginary gene.This small change indisputably represents genetic information not possessed by the parent. THis is what we call a mutation - a peice of the genetic code in an organism that did not come from a parent.Now, this particular mutation happened to create a meaningful word - it actually changed the meaning of the sentence. This is like the mutation observed in the bacterium that produces its resistance to the phage.Consider, Peg, that we can directly observe the full genetic code of both the parent and the eventual descendant bacterium in the experiment. We know from direct observation that bacteria reproduce only from copying, that the experiment begins with only a single bacterium and is kept isolated from any other life, with only nutrients to continue to replicate. We directly observe that the genetic code of the parent and the descendants are different, without any way for such changes to have been added.This isn't something that can rationally be argued, because we can directly see and observe it, and do so regularly a part of the standard education of biology students. The experiment is reproduced reliably around the world by independent groups in independent labs. Mutations are not reactive. New traits do not form in response to stimuli - they only become more common in response to selective pressure. A pre-existing trait that may have held no benefit or even caused harm now provides a benefit that allows those individuals who possess the trait to be more likely to reproduce than their peers, and so the trait is represented in a larger percentage of the total population.Mutations are random. You don;t mutate because of selective pressure. You mutate anyway - you, as a person, have several hundred mutations yourself, bits and pieces of genetic information that your ancestors did not have, caused by simply copying errors when the egg and sperm that began your life were spawned. Additional mutations exist in individual cells of your body as your cells make their own copying errors. False. That is your conclusion, not the conclusion of the scientists who actually performed the experiment. As has been stated, this cannot be compared to human hair or eye color. Those traits are determined by dominant and recessive genes because we have chromosomal pairs; we inherit half of our genes from each of our parents, and the dominant/recessive mechansim determines which gene will actually be expressed. A person can therefore carry a recessive, unexpressed gene and pass it to their offspring. If the offspring receives the same recessive gene from their other parent, the recessive trait will be expressed, even generations after the last expression on either side of the family.Bacteria do not have chromosome pairs. They do not have two parents. They reproduce by making copies of themselves. There is no dominant or recessive trait to allow for "skipping a generation." The mechanism simply doesn't exist. The descendant bacteria demonstrably possess genetic information that is not possessed by their parents. There is no inheritance of duplicate recessive genes allowing for an already-present feature to be expressed. The altered gene was not inherited - it is unique to the offspring, and is not present in the parent.The very definition of a mutation is a gene that was not inherited.Is there a part of this that you do not understand, or dispute?

im not sure if thats true or notbut it certainly sounds familiar...when people began to realise that life does not spontaneously generate, evolutionists changed tact too great, so now genetics has nothing to do with evolution either? i think your equation would be more accurate like this:1a + 1b = 1cand im not sure what you're trying to imply with your 2nd equationEdited by Peg, : No reason given.

absolutely i understand thisso did the scientist who conducted the experiment and it was concluded that genetics was the key factor that gave some bacteria immunity...not mutation.This conclusion was drawn because even the immune bacteria continued to produce offspring that were NOT immune.

Hi, Peg. First, your use of "genetics" as a buzzword is starting to get annoying. Mutation is part of "genetics."Second, you're just wrong. Try the experiment in reverse, as has been done. Kill off all the non-immune bacteria by exposing the entire colony to phage, and, within a few generations, you'll still see non-immune bacteria in the population. The only possible cause of this is an alteration to the genome (i.e. a mutation).----- But, bacteria aren't supposed to be able to do this! They only reproduce by making copies of themselves! And, since they don't have two sets of chromosomes, they can't have traits that disappear and reappear between generations unless the disappearance and reappearance is caused by mutation!So, "because even the immune bacteria continued to produce offspring that were NOT immune" is NOT a reason to conclude that mutation was not involved! In fact, it is exactly the opposite!That's the entire point of the experiment!Edited by Bluejay, : "the," not "to"

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

You're telling me that chihuahuas and bull mastiffs have the same traits and habits?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD