Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?
Zatara
Junior Member (Idle past 3359 days)
Posts: 4
From: Richland
Joined: 05-07-2015


(1)
Message 61 of 225 (757378)
05-08-2015 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
05-07-2015 11:48 PM


Re: Evolution of Birds
"....Change is built into the genome, but it can only vary the traits of the particular Species that are programmed into its genome, it can never produce something that is not already genetically available to that Species. Oodles of time isn't going to make one Species into another if the genetic program for all the characteristics of a given Species is limited to what is already packed into its genome. This is macroevolution's ultimate downfall...."
This is an oft repeated opinion offered by creationists. There are several problems with it, in addition to the lack of documentation for the opinion. One is this false dichotomy between "micro" and "macro" evolution. There is no such divide. Another is the fact that the tracks of evolutionary change are left as clearly as footprints in fresh snow via DNA. Homo sapiens and both Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus share 99% of their DNA. This makes the fact of their morphological similarities more than coincidence.
Anyone who has raised identical twins has observed the dramatic effects of mutation in just one generation. Their twins may have started out with identical DNA, having come from the same zygote; however, in just nine months in utero the mutations have yielded differences noticeable to all but a casual observer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 05-07-2015 11:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 05-08-2015 11:30 AM Zatara has not replied
 Message 140 by Admin, posted 05-11-2015 11:21 AM Zatara has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 62 of 225 (757379)
05-08-2015 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
05-07-2015 11:48 PM


Re: Evolution of Birds
quote:
That is, Species are capable of change but there are limits. Extreme change, even if produced by a series of small changes, is more likely to lead to extinction than further ability to change. Thus dies the Theory of Evolution.
This argument completely ignores the role of natural selection - and the fact that there are genuine changes to the genome. By culling harmful changes, and encouraging the spread of beneficial changes natural selection acts against any such tendency.
quote:
Fossils show what once lived, they do not necessarily show whether they were related to other fossil forms or not. The idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs is based only on some morphological similarities and position in the fossil record. We can tell if a fossil was related to a currently living thing by its morphology, but it's sheer speculation to claim descent from one Species to another.
Isn't it funny that a theoretical argument based on ignoring a major part of evolutionary theory is claimed as proof, while arguments based on sound evidence and reasoning are dismissed as "sheer speculation"
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 05-07-2015 11:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 63 of 225 (757393)
05-08-2015 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Zatara
05-08-2015 12:59 AM


Re: Evolution of Birds
I've made the case many times that there is a very real barrier to macroevolution in the fact that genetic diversity decreases as microevolution proceeds. It decreases because only the genes/alleles that underlie the new phenotype are present, others for other phenotypes having been eliminated, left behind in the former or mother population. You can't get further evolution from an already evolved breed or race or variety that has little or no genetic diversity left.
Mutation occurs at far too slow a rate to affect this.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Zatara, posted 05-08-2015 12:59 AM Zatara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2015 11:35 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2015 11:44 AM Faith has replied
 Message 67 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-08-2015 11:57 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 64 of 225 (757394)
05-08-2015 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
05-08-2015 11:30 AM


Re: Evolution of Birds
You've failed to make a case many times.
The assumption that genetic diversity only decreases rather than fluctuating about an average remains an assumption, unsupported by the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 05-08-2015 11:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 225 (757397)
05-08-2015 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
05-08-2015 11:30 AM


Re: Evolution of Birds
I've made the case many times
\
Actually, you've tried and failed many times to doi this.
Mutation occurs at far too slow a rate to affect this.
Right. A conclusion you managed to demonstrate without a single calculation, without any measurement of mutation rate and without a complete misunderstanding of genetics. All using the ridiculous fiction that evolution is just like breeding dogs and all despite being pointed to evidence of dogs and cats with mutations that you could not explain.
What is the rate at which mutation occurs in humans? How large would it have to be before you would accept that evolution is a possible explanation?

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 05-08-2015 11:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 05-08-2015 11:49 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 70 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-08-2015 12:14 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 66 of 225 (757399)
05-08-2015 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by NoNukes
05-08-2015 11:44 AM


Re: Evolution of Birds
I was using statistics on mutation rate provided by some of the evolutionists here. Sorry I don't have them at hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2015 11:44 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2015 12:05 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 84 by NoNukes, posted 05-09-2015 2:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 67 of 225 (757401)
05-08-2015 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
05-08-2015 11:30 AM


Re: Evolution of Birds
Faith writes:
I've made the case many times that there is a very real barrier to macroevolution in the fact that genetic diversity decreases as microevolution proceeds.
You made this argument over and over, but you never successfully made the case.
The reality is all around you. Natural populations are continuously budding off small sub-populations and many of those go on to found new populations and eventually new species.
Mutation occurs at far too slow a rate to affect this.
This is clearly wrong. Mutations rates are fast enough to fuel the increasing diversity of life that has been building for at least a billion years. Despite a fairly steady extinction rate punctuated by occasional mass extinctions life has increased in diversity without running out of genetic diversity as you claim.
This is what we actually see on this planet, Faith. If there is is a loss of genetic diversity as you claim, it is swamped by the sheer magnitude of mutations the restock the genetic arsenal.
Life is getting more genetically diverse, not less.
Faith writes:
Thus dies the Theory of Evolution.
Creationists keep making this claim, while the reality of science continues to use the Theory of Evolution to understand life on our planet.
How sad for you, reality does not listen to anything you say.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 05-08-2015 11:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 05-08-2015 12:08 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 68 of 225 (757404)
05-08-2015 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
05-08-2015 11:49 AM


Re: Evolution of Birds
quote:
I was using statistics on mutation rate provided by some of the evolutionists here. Sorry I don't have them at hand.
Even if you did - and I doubt it - you need much more than that.
The evidence does not show a long term overall decline in diversity, as your view requires.
And I'll take that fact over your opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 05-08-2015 11:49 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 69 of 225 (757405)
05-08-2015 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Tanypteryx
05-08-2015 11:57 AM


Re: Evolution of Birds
The reality is all around you. Natural populations are continuously budding off small sub-populations and many of those go on to found new populations and eventually new species.
Actually they don't. There are certainly many small sub-populations but they are genetically decreased by necessity in order to produce their peculiar characteristics. The only way you get "new species" from such genetically depleted populations is by labeling those as "new species" that are SO genetically depleted they can't interbreed with the other populations any more. Further evolution is impossible in those "new species" but evolution is basically word magic. Typical evolutionist flimflam.
Evolution defeats evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-08-2015 11:57 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-08-2015 12:26 PM Faith has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 225 (757407)
05-08-2015 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by NoNukes
05-08-2015 11:44 AM


Re: Evolution of Birds
Right. A conclusion you managed to demonstrate without a single calculation, without any measurement of mutation rate and without a complete misunderstanding of genetics.
Did you mean without a complete "understanding" of genetics rather than misunderstanding?
I don't think a person needs a complete understanding to argue about the general mechanisms of genetic processes, but Faith lacks even a rudimentary understanding and just makes things up that defy reality.
She has stated in past arguments that beneficial mutations do not happen.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2015 11:44 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2015 5:11 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 71 of 225 (757410)
05-08-2015 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
05-07-2015 11:48 PM


Re: Evolution of Birds
Hi Faith, back at it again eh?
But what's so odd really, is that very noticeable changes occur within a few generations when you isolate a small number of a Species. Darwin demonstrated this with pigeons, getting extreme variations in a very short period of time just by breeding to enhance a chosen trait. ...
Indeed, what you had was the joint effect of mutations and selection. His insight was that the selection process occurred naturally, where animals that survived and bred passed their genes (that enabled them to survive and be selected by mates for breeding) to the next generation.
The ability to hop a little further because of the arrangement of feathers enabled the bearer more survival ability to catch or evade. Feathers could also be a means to attract mates as we see today, so selection for greater feathers by sexual selection led to the proliferation of feathers that then became an asset to hop and glide and finally to fly.
... All this demonstrates is the great variability that is built in to a Species, ...
In know this is your pet theory, and you have presented it hundreds of time, and every time it gets refuted by evidence that shows new DNA in species that did not have it before.
What is built in is a predilection for mutation that provides the variation that selection works on.
... that develops through microevolution if the breeding pool is isolated. Isolation can occur either artificially by human manipulation, or by natural factors such as migration of a small number of a Species in the wild. Either method will produce a new type or breed or race or variety.
Correct -- isolation leads to different selection pressures on the different populations, as has been discussed with black pocket mice in the southwest. The same for the Peppered Moths -- different environment produces different selection processes that result in visible changes.
Change is built into the genome, ...
Change is built into the susceptibility of DNA to mutate, during the creation of sex gametes or during the process of cell division during the development of an organism. The development can be affected by chemicals, hormones and temperature. An example of the is the Russian silver fox experiment where the foxes were selected for less aggressive behavior over several generations, and the offspring evolved to be more like dogs, with floppy ears, spots, and behavior changes relative to the parent population.
... but it can only vary the traits of the particular Species that are programmed into its genome, it can never produce something that is not already genetically available to that Species.
This statement has been shown to be false time and again. That you keep repeating this fallacy does not begin to make it valid. Several bacteria studies show the appearance of DNA sequences that did not exist in the study population at the start.
... Oodles of time isn't going to make one Species into another ...
If you mean turn a cat into a dog, then of course that isn't going to happen -- but that is not how (macro)evolution works, so that not happening just disproves a fallacy.
If you mean that new species are not going to rise out of varieties and continued microevolutionary process in isolated populations, then you are wrong because the development of new species has been observed.
... This is macroevolution's ultimate downfall. ...
Except that it isn't macroevolution, but creationist pseudomacroevolution that fails.
Macroevolution in evolutionary biology is the process of speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies. You already understand the basic mechanics of this:
... Either method will produce a new type or breed or race or variety.
... which is the beginning of speciation (new species formation)and the formation of nested hierarchies. We see this process taken to the next level with the Asian greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides):
... where P.t.viridanus (blue) is almost completely isolated, but shares a small overlap interbreeding zone with P.t.ludlowi (green), which is almost completely isolated, but that also shares a small overlap interbreeding zone with P.t.troichilodes (yellow),which is almost completely isolated, but that also shares a small overlap interbreeding zone with P.t.obscuratus (orange),which is almost completely isolated, but that also shared a small overlap interbreeding zone with P.t.plumbeitarsus (red), but now we get to the interesting part ... P.t.viridanus (blue) and P.t.plumbeitarsus (red) share a small overlap zone but do not interbreed -- they are reproductively isolated, so variations in one population are not shared with the other population.
This is how speciation -- the development of new species -- occurs, but normally the process happens over time instead of over distance.
... If the Species is genetically equipped for fur it isn't going to grow feathers no matter how clever you are at breeding strategies. ...
Well, I think we can agree that this has not happened and is not likely to happen.
But in my case, it would not be likely to happen because there would be no reason for it. What would be the selection pressure to change fur into feathers? Bats fly with fur instead of feathers, they took a different evolutionary path dictated by what they had available to be mutated and developed into wings. Bats don't need feathers to fly so there is no pressure for them to evolve.
Flying squirrels and sugar gliders and Colugos and Wallace's frogs and flying fish and flying geckos and flying boa snakes have all taken different evolutionary paths dictated by what they had available to be mutated and developed into winglike surfaces -- whether those wing shapes were good enough for powered flying, or more often just sufficient to glide.
Multitudes of insects have developed flight, some even evolve wings lose wings and then re-evolve wings. Insects don't need feathers to fly either, and would likely be encumbered if by some strange metamorphosis they did evolve feathers.
Macroevolution of species is not metamorphosis of individuals.
Small spiders fly by kiting a strand of web material, and drift with the wind in much the same way that multitudes of plant have flying seeds.
... OR, if you get something in the direction of feathers by assiduous selection, you will sacrifice so much else to the effort you may not even have a viable living creature at all in the end. That is, if you try to breed from an anomaly you will most often get disease and deformation. ...
Agreed, artificial selection can -- and has -- resulted in organisms that would be less fit in the wild than their parent populations. Many dog varieties fall into this category, many with endemic problems that plague them.
... That is, Species are capable of change but there are limits. ...
What are those limits? Where are those limits observed?
Or is it like flipping a coin ... each flip of a coin can be heads or tails, but what it was in the last generation of flipping has no effect on what will happen with the current flip.
... Extreme change, ...
What change is "extreme" Faith?
... even if produced by a series of small changes, ...
At what point does continued small change become "extreme" -- what is your measure of difference?
... is more likely to lead to extinction than further ability to change.
Each step in the process is an adaptation for better survival and reproduction in a changing world, and like the coin there is no reason for the future to be affected by the past, no chain that says "this far and no farther" that has ever been discovered.
In fact as species diversify and spread into more different ecosystems, adapt to those ecosystems and evolve into new species it is more likely that one will continue to survive than an unchanging population of the parent species. The fossil record is filled with species that lived and then were replaced by newer species.
... Thus dies the Theory of Evolution.
Alas, all that dies is your strawman caricature of the theory of evolution.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis (linear or phyletic speciation), and the process of cladogenesis (divergent speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies), are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
These processes have been observed and that means the theory is supported by objective empirical facts. In addition, nothing has been observed that invalidates this theory, and certainly false and misleading arguments based on misunderstanding evolution do not invalidate the theory.
Fossils show what once lived, they do not necessarily show whether they were related to other fossil forms or not. ...
Curiously you are splitting of hairs of much less significance than you think.
First fossils are snapshots of individuals rather than of the whole breeding population. Second there are fossil records that show the amount of variation within one generation overlaps with the variation in following generations -- such that many individuals could be members of either population, and the only difference is the time of their appearance in the fossil record:
You can draw vertical lines from the ends of each layer of fossils and see that generation to generation they share the majority of overlapped variations, but that after several generations the then current population has variations that were not found in the original parent population: all P.jarrovii are different from all P.ralstoni ... before dividing into two independent daughter populations, N.nunienus and N.venticolis that don't overlap each other but each overlaps portions of the parent population.
These fossils are all found in the same habitat\location, separated only by time, and to ignore the morphological similarities to claim they are not related is more denial than objective consideration.
If the morphological change from generation to generation is less than the morphological variation within the populations -- the variation due to microevolution -- and if there is clear geological\ecological continuity, then it is reasonable to see they are just as related as are humans from one part of the world related to others in other parts of the world.
... The idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs is based only on some morphological similarities and position in the fossil record. ...
Actually it is based on a majority of morphological overlap of traits and on a continuity of geological\ecological just as is the case for the Pelycodus above.
And curiously this overlap of evidence continues to grow as more fossils are found, with more and more intermediates in forms rather than more segregations into distinct unrelated groups.
Dinosaurs evolved feathers before they developed flight -- the development of feathers enabled the development of flight from already existing traits in the parent populations.
... We can tell if a fossil was related to a currently living thing by its morphology, but it's sheer speculation to claim descent from one Species to another.
And I will agree that some speculation is involved in saying that species (X) evolved from species (Y), but I will disagree on the degree of speculation involved: the speculation is highly informed by the amount of morphological similarities, by the congruity of space and time, and by the intermediates between one population and the next, such that if species (X) did not evolve directly from species (Y) that it must have evolved from a close cousin species to (Y) -- one that could have been a small isolated subpopulation of a parent population to both it and species (Y).
Curiously, the theory of evolution does not depend of showing direct unambiguous descent of one species from another, just that the evolutionary processes that we know - and have observed - happen can explain the evolution of one from the other. Does the change in morphology fall with the range of morphological differences possible? Is there a distinct and clear lineage in time and location?
And I know you have seen all this before.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 59 by Faith, posted 05-07-2015 11:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 05-08-2015 4:42 PM RAZD has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 72 of 225 (757411)
05-08-2015 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
05-08-2015 12:08 PM


Re: Evolution of Birds
Faith writes:
Actually they don't. There are certainly many small sub-populations but they are genetically decreased by necessity in order to produce their peculiar characteristics. The only way you get "new species" from such genetically depleted populations is by labeling those as "new species" that are SO genetically depleted they can't interbreed with the other populations any more. Further evolution is impossible in those "new species" but evolution is basically word magic. Typical evolutionist flimflam.
That is your fantasy world, Faith.
Biologists all over the world are continuing to study living things and none of them have found or reported what you claim.
What they do see is diversity increasing in large and small populations due to mutations.
Faith writes:
Evolution defeats evolution.
Evolution never stops.
Reality defeats creationism.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 05-08-2015 12:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-08-2015 4:47 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 73 of 225 (757419)
05-08-2015 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
05-08-2015 12:24 PM


Evolution eats alleles
But what's so odd really, is that very noticeable changes occur within a few generations when you isolate a small number of a Species. Darwin demonstrated this with pigeons, getting extreme variations in a very short period of time just by breeding to enhance a chosen trait. ...
Indeed, what you had was the joint effect of mutations and selection.
Selection certainly applies here as Darwin himself was doing the selecting, at times rather drastically isolating a trait of his choosing and breeding to enhance that trait until the bird was dominated by it to the exclusion of other characteristics. If there was some reason in nature for the development of the same trait you would see Natural Selection at work to the same end.
However, your assertion that mutation was also at work is nothing but evolutionist fantasy and something for which you cannot produce evidence. In such domestic breeding you don't need mutation anyway. All the genetic material is available for all the traits possessed by the pigeon. When a trait is selected its genotype is also selected, and alleles for other expressions of the same trait are soon eliminated from the population of birds from which the trait is being bred. If the selection continues generation after generation a point may be reached where ONLY the alleles for the chosen trait are present, all others having been left behind in the original population. if this goes on long enough in nature it is easy enough to see how a subpopulation could develop inability to interbreed with other populations of the same Species, from sheer genetic mismatch. That point wasn't reached with Darwin's pigeons. As soon as they were allowed to revert to their natural reproductive patterns they "reverted to type" and resumed their former form as the common rock pigeon.
\
His insight was that the selection process occurred naturally, where animals that survived and bred passed their genes (that enabled them to survive and be selected by mates for breeding) to the next generation.
Yes, this was his insight but he didn't have the knowledge that would tell him that the changes that occur through selection, natural or artificial, are limited by the fact that selection eliminates alleles in the process of developing new phenotypes. Eventually the new breed or type may be quite strikingly different from others of its kind but it will of necessity have much less genetic ability for any further evolution. Evolution eats alleles, eliminates them, in order to produce those changes so optimistically considered to be the foundation for open-ended evolution. It's pure theory, for which there isn't the slightest evidence, and although I think evidence should be easy enough to come by to show that genetic decrease is in fact the result of evolution /selection / reproductive isolation, common sense really ought to be enough to make the case: You can't get or maintain a breed of Chihuahuas if that breed retains alleles for malamutes, or is not reproductively isolated from other breeds.
The ability to hop a little further because of the arrangement of feathers enabled the bearer more survival ability to catch or evade. Feathers could also be a means to attract mates as we see today, so selection for greater feathers by sexual selection led to the proliferation of feathers that then became an asset to hop and glide and finally to fly.
No argument with the basic principle, but wherever such changes are possible it's because the genetic material for them is already available in the population. You will not get feathers in a creature that does not already possess feathers. You can get different kinds of feathers, feathers that enhance sexual selection or other capacities, but only in a creature that already has the genes for feathers.
Change is built into the genome, ...
Change is built into the susceptibility of DNA to mutate,
Sheer unprovable theory, RAZD. Article of faith. Mutations not only rarely occur in any form that could facilitate beneficial changes, they are often deleterious and usually of no apparent value at all -- except that even when neutral they destroy a perfectly good functioning allele that may not make an immediate change in the phenotype but is certainly not a good thing.
...during the creation of sex gametes or during the process of cell division during the development of an organism. The development can be affected by chemicals, hormones and temperature.
You can indeed cause mutations by many artificial means but most of them are not desirable for the health of the Species, and above all, you don't NEED mutations for effective microevolution and the development of interesting variations and breeds. The genetic material is already there in any large breeding population.
An example of the is the Russian silver fox experiment where the foxes were selected for less aggressive behavior over several generations, and the offspring evolved to be more like dogs, with floppy ears, spots, and behavior changes relative to the parent population.
You say nothing about artificially induced mutations here, and there is absolutely no need for them. This change was possible because the genetic material for the chosen traits was already present in the fox genome and could be selected over several generations. This is how all breeds of animals were originally developed, by selection of the traits desired by the breeder, selection meaning basically reproductive isolation of the individuals with those traits.
Sometimes interesting breeds develop from accidental selection factors such as must have been the case when privately owned herds of cattle were selected out of the wild population. Dozens of ranchers with their own herds that developed from an original accidental selection would end up in a few hundred years with very distinct cattle breeds which they would then work to preserve. This is simply because selecting and isolating individuals out of an original population also selects the genetic material for a particular collection of traits that distinguish the new population from both the original and from those of the other selected herds.
... but it can only vary the traits of the particular Species that are programmed into its genome, it can never produce something that is not already genetically available to that Species.
This statement has been shown to be false time and again. That you keep repeating this fallacy does not begin to make it valid. Several bacteria studies show the appearance of DNA sequences that did not exist in the study population at the start.
Bacteria don't function genetically or reproductively the way sexually reproducing animals do and I refuse to accept such "evidence." But of course that's the best you can do to answer my obvious points, isn't it?
... Oodles of time isn't going to make one Species into another ...
If you mean turn a cat into a dog, then of course that isn't going to happen -- but that is not how (macro)evolution works, so that not happening just disproves a fallacy.
Of course that isn't what I mean. I mean for starters develop a trait that isn't in the genome of the Species.
If you mean that new species are not going to rise out of varieties and continued microevolutionary process in isolated populations, then you are wrong because the development of new species has been observed.
As I already said, the supposed "new species" are just a fantasy. They are the genetically depleted products of overselection that have lost the ability to interbreed with other populations of the same species, in most cases likely due to genetic mismatch because of their genetic depletion. This is so far from a platform for further evolution it makes the ToE ridiculous. For selection to occur, you need genetic material for it to select from. At a certain point of microevolution, when you have a new population with new traits that can no longer interbreed with other populations, you don't have enough genetic material for further evolution to occur. You may have a very interesting subspecies but you also have reached a dead end in the processes that brought it about.
Evolution defeats evolution.
I have to stop here in your voluminous post.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2015 12:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2015 10:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 74 of 225 (757420)
05-08-2015 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Tanypteryx
05-08-2015 12:26 PM


Re: Evolution of Birds
What they do see is diversity increasing in large and small populations due to mutations.
No they don't "see" this at all. They assume it because they believe what the ToE currently teaches. They simply label the appearance of any new trait as the result of mutation.
But new traits naturally occur with reproductive isolation alone, from the built-in genetic material alone. Phenotypic diversity naturally increases when populations are reproductively isolated, but this phenotypic diversity comes with a decrease in genetic diversity, because in a population with a particular trait picture, alleles for competing traits are eliminated from that group.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-08-2015 12:26 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2015 5:09 PM Faith has replied
 Message 78 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-08-2015 5:43 PM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 75 of 225 (757422)
05-08-2015 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
05-08-2015 4:47 PM


Re: Evolution of Birds
No they don't "see" this at all. They assume it because they believe what the ToE currently teaches. They simply label the appearance of any new trait as the result of mutation.
Again, during our last discussion of this topic, Dr. Adequate pointed out several examples of new traits traceable to new alleles in dogs and cats and you had no answer for even one of his examples. In each case the new traits were dominant meaning that they were not simply 'hiding out' in the genome. So yeah, geneticists have seen exactly what you deny.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-08-2015 4:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 05-08-2015 5:35 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024