Coyote
Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
Message 85 of 164 (654601)
03-02-2012 10:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by idscience
03-01-2012 5:17 PM
|
|
Evidence (for you to ignore, misrepresent, or deny)
FIRST GENETIC EVIDENCE UNCOVERED OF HOW MAJOR CHANGES IN BODY SHAPES OCCURRED DURING EARLY ANIMAL EVOLUTION University of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : Science Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals. In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects. The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolutionthe absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs. The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution, says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome. The UCSD team, which included Matthew Ronshaugen and Nadine McGinnis, showed in its experiments that this could be accomplished with relatively simple mutations in a class of regulatory genes, known as Hox, that act as master switches by turning on and off other genes during embryonic development. Using laboratory fruit flies and a crustacean known as Artemia, or brine shrimp, the scientists showed how modifications in the Hox gene Ubxwhich suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies, while its crustacean counterpart from Artemia only represses 15%would have allowed the crustacean-like ancestors of Artemia, with limbs on every segment, to lose their hind legs and diverge 400 million years ago into the six-legged insects. [snip] =================== 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent Copyright 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences. This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated. [snip; follow the link for many pages of details] OK, I have presented evidence that macroevolution, as defined by scientists, occurs.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 5:17 PM | | idscience has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 163 of 164 (655006)
03-06-2012 1:26 PM
|
|
|
Summary
He wanted evidence, so I presented evidence in Message 85. I figured he would either ignore, misrepresent, or deny that evidence, so I included that in the message title. He said he'd study it and never mentioned it again. I guess that counts as an "ignore." Par for the course in dealing with creationists, eh?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
™ Version 4.2
