Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Extent of Mutational Capability
Gregory Rogers
Junior Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 7
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-15-2016


Message 1 of 279 (792987)
10-18-2016 8:10 AM


Hi all,
I am new to this forum, and also to this level of the creationism-vs-evolution debate.
A year ago I set myself the task of plumbing the depths of the debate to ascertain, if I could, the truth about this issue (bearing in mind that my field is theology, not science).
To this end I would like to pose a series of questions, and would appreciate input from all sides.
My first question relates to the extent and depth of which mutations are capable, that is, of genetic ‘elasticity’, as it were. Namely: Is there any known process or element in the genetic make-up of animal organisms, or else anything within biology, that would actively stop or act as a barrier to so-called 'macroevolution’. In other words, anything known to genetics that would prevent transformation or mutation from one animal category to another, i.e., any process that would preclude, for example, an ape-like form evolving into a human being, a dinosaur evolving into a bird, and so forth.
It goes without saying that adaptation occurs on a lower level, eg, adaptation can result in different types of finches within the finch species, or else different breeds of dog within the dog species, etc. I believe all sides are agreed on this (so-called 'microevolution').
The crux of the debate, of course, is whether organisms can adapt significantly beyond this, from one animal to a different animal form altogether (ie, so-called 'macroevolution'). Thus I would be interested to know if there is any known genetic barrier that would actively prevent this larger step to a different animal form.
As a layperson, I am struck by the inventive adaptations within the dog family (eg Great Dane compared with Maltese, etc.) Looking at this level of inventiveness, it might seem that the inventive step from one to another animal type as such is not unreasonable.
However, the creationist counter-argument is, I believe, that DNA make-up is like a computer software programme, and that it cannot develop outside of its basic programming. Thus a cat could never evolve into a dog, etc.
Of course, I have also heard the evolutionist argument that two different genes can merge and share their differences, resulting in a new genetic direction, and in this way new animal classes develop.
I hope I have stated the science correctly, as per above.
So then, I would greatly appreciate all input on this point.
Regards,
Greg

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by dwise1, posted 10-18-2016 10:22 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 4 by Taq, posted 10-18-2016 10:46 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 8 by dwise1, posted 10-18-2016 3:19 PM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 9 by dwise1, posted 10-18-2016 3:29 PM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2016 6:33 PM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 24 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2016 3:49 PM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2016 9:43 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 27 by dwise1, posted 10-20-2016 4:17 PM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 28 by CRR, posted 10-21-2016 12:12 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 136 by mike the wiz, posted 10-30-2016 7:03 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 215 by Pressie, posted 11-17-2016 6:58 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

  
Gregory Rogers
Junior Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 7
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-15-2016


Message 48 of 279 (793125)
10-21-2016 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Theodoric
10-21-2016 11:12 AM


Re: Greg, Please Don't Give Up Yet!
Woah!
Please do not close this thread.
Far from having 'done my Christian duty', I have been reading every post with some keenness.
Perhaps my response is belated, thus apologies: nonetheless, thank you very much one and all for your input - it has given me a great deal to think about. A little heated at times, yes, but no, I am intrigued.
I would be interested to see where the logical course of the thread is going - although, by now I certainly have my answer, at least from a Darwinist perspective. I am a little surprised there are not more creationist or ID-ers on the site - I was hoping for a more 'iron sharpens iron' experience, where posts could be tested from both sides.
In short, apart from rebuttals to existing posts, at this stage I would like to hear the ID/Creationist view on the extent and 'elasticity' of genetic mutations. If not, however, then perhaps this thread can suffer the 'coup de grace'; and I will duly go on to my next question in a new thread.
Thanks once again, one and all,
Greg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 10-21-2016 11:12 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 10-21-2016 11:37 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 55 by CRR, posted 10-21-2016 8:59 PM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 10-23-2016 11:13 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 102 by dwise1, posted 10-25-2016 2:04 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 103 by Pressie, posted 10-25-2016 6:52 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2016 8:07 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 111 by dwise1, posted 10-25-2016 2:42 PM Gregory Rogers has not replied

  
Gregory Rogers
Junior Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 7
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-15-2016


Message 80 of 279 (793213)
10-24-2016 9:44 AM


Proposition: Another Angle
Hi all.
Thanks once again for the overwhelming response to my original posting.
The current thread direction re: precise definitions of kinds, etc., is no doubt important, and I would like to see common consensus on the issue.
However, tying back to my original question about the extent of mutational 'elasticity', I would like to make an additional proposition to illustrate this another way:
Namely: let us hypothesize that there is another extinction event and
man, homo sapiens, under extreme environmental pressures, now begins to adapt or change (mutate).
Let us say, for example, there is a worldwide nuclear war. 90 percent of homo sapiens is wiped out, and the only option is to go miles underground, into deep tunnels and caverns.
To make it interesting, let us say that these caverns have virtually no light, are only three feet high, and that a massive landslide blocks re-entry to the surface.
My question, then, is: what direction would the new mutational tendencies take? Ultimately legs and arms would grow smaller, he would crawl like a large reptile; he would perhaps develop sonar technique like a bat for sensing direction, and the eyes would fall away almost completely.
Further to this, how long might it take before homo sapiens evolves into a whole new organism — i.e., comparable to dinosaurs evolving into birds, which in that case involved scales becoming feathers, a mouth with teeth becoming a beak, wings developing, etc.
In perhaps a different hypothetical instance, how long might it take for human flesh to evolve into another substance — reptilian skin, let us say, or else for arms and hands to become claws, or what have you?
Breaking it down, how many mutations would be required for such a transition? How long would each mutational change take, and how long would be required altogether for the transition?
Once again, I would appreciate all input.
Regards,
Greg
Edited by Gregory Rogers, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2016 11:13 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2016 11:37 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 86 by Stile, posted 10-24-2016 12:03 PM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 106 by Pressie, posted 10-25-2016 8:08 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

  
Gregory Rogers
Junior Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 7
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-15-2016


Message 161 of 279 (793568)
11-02-2016 8:26 AM


Good day,
I would like at this juncture to say a big thank you to all for the untiring and fascinating posts above.
Thank you Taq, for the ‘Hominidae’ chart (message 89). I found it fascinating, and no doubt the focus of future study.
Hi Dwise, concerning your Message 48 — yes, I had heard this about creationism and its origin, but interesting to have it filled out like that. Ditto your comment on quote mining.
I am quite surprised by the interesting and unexpected directions this forum takes — (perhaps reminiscent of the inventiveness of genetic mutations themselves?). There have been times I have thought the thread was dying a natural death, and intended to close it (if it is up to me to do that), but then a new post opens up a whole new angle. I note to my chagrin just how complex this issue is — there is indeed a great deal to digest.
If I could refer to Message 140 of Dr Adequate: I found the pictures of transitional forms intriguing and very helpful.
If I could centre in on one of them: the whale example. The evolutionary position here is, I believe, that the whale-ancestor was a land mammal which adapted to sea life and ultimately became the whale of today. The vestigial limb is cited as proof of this.
I would like to ‘unpack’ this a bit: the ID and Creationist response here is to say that the limb is not vestigial, but has a natural function, serving as an attachment point for muscles that both male and female cetaceans need to reproduce.
The best way to test this is, I would say, to examine the limb itself: looking at bone structure, basic design, etc., what are the evidences as to its background: are there clear indications, parallels, of limbs of a land-mammal; alternatively, is there clear evidence that it has, and has only ever had, the sole function of an attachment point for reproductive organs.
A further angle would be to compare other sea creatures to see if they have a comparable external mechanism.
Would appreciate all input.
Regards,
Greg

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Pressie, posted 11-02-2016 8:39 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 163 by Pressie, posted 11-02-2016 9:20 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 164 by AZPaul3, posted 11-02-2016 1:39 PM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-02-2016 2:31 PM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-02-2016 2:47 PM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 169 by dwise1, posted 11-02-2016 3:46 PM Gregory Rogers has not replied
 Message 170 by dwise1, posted 11-02-2016 5:04 PM Gregory Rogers 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