|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 2685 days) Posts: 7 From: South Africa Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Extent of Mutational Capability | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2267 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
So you agree that it has not been observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I'm sorry, but just what are you talking about?
So you agree that it has not been observed. Coyote wrote:
We have good evidence for the evolution of fully modern humans from earlier critters, both different species and different genera. Direct observation is not needed, except by creationists arguing against evolution for religious reasons. So just what the hell are you talking about? Just exactly and precisely what is the "it" in your message?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So you agree that it has not been observed. From your question it appears you feel things need to be personally observed to be science. This is nonsense, and most likely creationist nonsense. Further proof that creationists should never attempt science: they have neither the education nor the inclination for it.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
The creationist use of macro- and micro- evolution is exclusive to them, thus in this context it is reasonable to regard them as creationist terms.
Modern evolutionary theory certainly allows neutral mutations to spread by drift, so changes that require multiple mutations before achieving benefit are certainly possible and arguably it is inevitable that some will eventually appear. Given the limited timescale for observation it is rather obvious that no evolution that is directly observed would be counted as evolution from one "kind" (an ill-defined creationist term) to another. The relevant evidence we do have points rather strongly towards evolution between groups that creationists would consider separate kinds (dinosaurs to birds seems a good example, although the common ancestry of dogs and cats or the evolution of whales as well as human evolution all seem good candidates) I believe that gene duplication has been observed in bacteria, and even subsequent divergence of the duplicates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2267 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Hello, Dwise1.
Gene merging was used by the OP and I wasn't too worried about it. One example I can think of is in human chromosome 2 the supposed fusion site is within an active gene which therefore should have existed in two separate halves before the fusion. The phrase should have been read as "gene duplication and conversion" and perhaps I should have phrased that better. Certainly gene duplication happens although even in the example you quote about hair colour I believe the presence of multiple alleles is interpreted as duplication and conversion rather than and actual observation. The smallest to largest cats can be linked by interbreeding as follows: Domestic cats can be crossed with the 3—9 kg margay, Leopardus weidii, which readily interbreeds with the 11—16 kg ocelot, Leopardus pardalus, which has been crossed with the puma (35—100 kg), Puma concolor, which has been hybridized with the leopard (30—85 kg), Panthera pardus, which can be crossed with the lion (120—250 kg), Panthera leo, which can readily interbreed with the tiger, Panthera tigris, with adult tigers ranging from 110 kg to a massive 320 kg. This is an ongoing area of research and may need revision in the future, just like any scientific theory. Who claims that one kind can evolve into another? Evolutionists, that's who! The doctrine of universal common ancestry means that whatever level you think the kind might be, say it's the family level, each one must have first appeared as a subset of something else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
... gene duplication and conversion has never been observed. Bullshit! Since you are a ferenner (Amarikan for "foreigner"), that means that you are spouting nonesense. First, gene duplication does happen. The magical word is "multiple alleles." One gene for hair color: black or white. No, there are multiple gene pairs of hair color, even ones that allow for all possible shades of brown and blond. One gene for skin color, black or white? No, yet again there are multiple gene pairs of skin color, even ones that allow for all possible shades of brown and "brown-ish". So your bullshit lies about the lack of gene duplication is just that, pure bullshit.
Gene merging ... Just what nonsense are you talking about?
Similarly from hybrids we can infer that all cats, from tabby to tiger, are all part of the cat kind. We already know that that is complete and utter bullshit. Tigers are Pantherinae and tabbies are Felinae and there are no hybrids between the two. Your "basic created cat kind" is split between two groups who cannot interbreed between themselves. AKA macroevolution!!! However we have never observed evolution from one kind into another. Just what the fuck are you actually talking about??? Please define your terms with the greatest precision that you can. Only then can we actually talk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2267 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1, If you look back you'll see coyote1 was responding to my statement "However we have never observed evolution from one kind into another."
That's the "it" I was talking about. I might need to be more explicit in future. Edited by CRR, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Gene merging was used by the OP and I wasn't too worried about it. Well, what the OP was thinking is not at all clear since he has neglected to post anything since then. So then what "gene merging" is supposed to mean remains a mystery. Unless it is a common creationist term in which case you are obliged to explain it to those uninitiated into your own particular Mystery.
Who claims that one kind can evolve into another? What the fuck are you talking about??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Explain yourself!!! Edited by Admin, : Reduce number of question marks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2267 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Hello PaulK,
The terms micro and macroevolution are usually credited to evolutionist Yuri Filipchenko, and they are certainly not exclusive to evolutionists. Check out for instance Evolution 101 - Understanding Evolution Yes changes requiring multiple neutral mutations can happen such as chloroquinine resistance in malaria (due to a fault in a transport protein). This required only 2 neutral or near neutral mutations and took a long time to occur in a large population with short reproduction times. In small populations with long reproduction times, such as humans, the waiting time becomes prohibitive, especially when larger numbers of neutral mutations are required to get a benefit. Gene duplication has certainly been observed in bacteria, but I'm not sure about conversion. Perhaps if you want to count Nylonase but that was a small variation to an existing enzyme that changed the target but not the function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2267 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I think my previous answer covered both these topics, and please keep your language civil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2267 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
How do you do those block quotes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
This may not translate well.
[ qs ]this is the text you want to quote [/ qs ]OK, it did after all. Remove the spaces and it should work. To test it, type what you think should work, then press the Preview button. If that worked, then press the Submit Reply button. If not, then make the necessary corrections and press the Preview button as many times as is necessary. And if that did not work, then simply go back to your previous post and edit it, though do please also log in your reason for performing that edit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
And do please keep your head out of your culo.
Who claims that one kind can evolve into another? Do please be very specific about that. And about what it is supposed to mean by " one kind {evolving} into another". I do indeed mean extremely specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote:
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level
[ improved example ] The diversification of the cat family is a clear example of macroevolution under the definition used by your reference. Yet you would call it microevolution. You are not using the word in the same sense. Simply looking at the words and ignoring the fact that they are used with quite different meanings is only going to confuse the issue.
quote: The difficulty is in neutral mutations appearing and spreading in a short timescale. If the time scale is not an issue - and it need not be - then the problem does not exist.
quote: I believe that I read of another example. However, it must be pointed out that there is no reason why it cannot occur. Once you accept duplication I cannot see any reason to suppose that one of the copies cannot change and be useful. And obviously small changes are most likely in short timescales anyway. In longer timescales we should expect bigger changes in function, through cooption, for instance. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I'll be moderating this thread. These are the ground rules.:
Please, no replies to this message.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024