"Slanted" Eyes in Orientals

Hi Abby . Just a thought while lurking: Isn't that information that is already in the insect's gene pool? I think the stance is, that you can gain anything that might already be in your gene pool. So these wings, wouldn't they be selected from the available information?

Are you getting "loss" mixed with Natural selection though? What I mean is, NS is a culling process, yes. So the creationist isn't saying that "loss and recovery" does happen, or he would be evolutionist. What creationism says, is that anything you lose with Natural selection is altogether lost unless the trait isn't totally wiped from the gene pool. IOW, if you once had a horse with horns, then if that "horns trait" was firstly in the gene pool, it is salvageable, unless NS completely removes it. SO, if an insect "regains" wings, it's because of the information already available to that species from it's pool. That means you can get a lot of very different breeds of horse, yet you can never quite breed one with wings. Now do tell me of a link which shows a horse with wings if you know of one. IOW, that's what Almeyda is saying, s/he wants to see something big - show her a mutating SOB.So if we "only lose" then yes, obviously we cannot regain that which is no longer there. YET your insect example might be infact a species that had wings in the past, and has not altogether ridded the trait. Maybe the scientists just couldn't find one with wings. So ofcourse the added mechanism is mutation. Yet creos deny that there is a producer of new information anyway. They are just saying that the information available is from a source with those traits. Otherwise, they would agree with you.As for "repressing the wing" information. Surely the information just isn't selected?

I understand, yes. It's just creationism says even though A = B, A must have once been B, or had that information to enable it to be B. If we have two humans who are white, and they produce a coloured baby, that doesn't mean their ancestors were always white. Which is similar to what I'm saying. Are you saying they never had coloured ancestors? But doesn't evolution say that it is "lost" by the natural selection process? Rather than mutation? If we have two traits, longer legs for fast running, and shorter ones for slower activity, and the wild beasties of the field do pounce, then surely NS selects the longer legs? I'm guessing if there is a species with "just" wings then they can not produce a species without them, unless there is a gene within their pool that contains information for "no wings". A hidden or dorment gene. We'll call it the "wiz" gene, since no one can or will tell me if this is possible. ROFL. But if it already there to be expressed, then mutation surely isn't needed? For example, some short legged trait alleles are left in the gene pool, despite there apparent "loss". Maybe Loudmouth could help me with this one. I'm guessing, (only guessing, don't laugh) - that our genetic information contains more than what we are, maybe it contains some variants? Lol. What I mean is, some kind of information that lies dorment within us untill we say, get a coloured baba.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-24-2004 12:16 PM

That's my point really. That NS gets rid of useless traits, but can it not simply remove it, to an extent. I mean, if let's say, we have wings/no wings available. Because how can you know for sure that it wasn't both available at one time? You would need to have access to the past. It's like me saying, "White people are a mutation, when people of coloured skin have produced coloured skinned peope, for hundreds of year, and all of a sudden they produce a white person". So, just how can you possibly know that it MUST have started out winged or wingless? Time machine maybe? Why? Maybe there are no wingless individuals and they are all winged, yet they still have an alternative hereditary unit. Maybe all the members of my family are white, yet they might still produce a coloured person? Isn't this what I am saying?? I mean, if pathways are already there, then maybe they can be part of the "next" offspring, not by mutation, but by information that already exists? If wingless creatures have pathways for wings, then who's to say that they were not once with wings?Sorry, your link crashed my computer, I daren't touch it again. Ofcourse, the simplest answer may well be that mutation is beneficial and does add information. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just trying to show what creationism says about these occurences of wings from wingless insects. But insects are so bizarre anyway, a catterpillar becomes a butterfly. I'd sure like to see a horse become a human. Teehee.AIG says that you may well get changes, yet you will find that those changes can be accounted for by the fact that they were once in the gene pool. You can only breed so many horses, and I'm sure they're different in size and colour, but are they horses? Once the information is lost, then the horse is still a horse, it can just never be breeded with a very different horse, So the explanation is that the horse may not be able to reproduce with it's "kind" yet that is because Natural selection has culled the dormant genes, or ridded the previous traits. Is that not an explanation? Don't forget, "kinds" do become useless biologically speaking, and "species" can be used, BUT that in iteself doesn't mean that original "kind" groups didn't exist.So what do we see? If AIG is right we should still get a horse despite it's isolation from the main "kind". So, that means that we get a creature that still resembles a horse, and is in a way, atleast, still a horse "kind". It is simply isolated. Doesn't this also explain diversity?