|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4933 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolutionary Adaptation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
Evolution is/has been about natural selection, right? I've heard all sorts of theories about adaptation, but haven't found them all in one place. so:Is adaptation to an enviroment possible? Lets say you move a group of a hundred people out to an island thats made of broken glass. Assuming they died natural deaths, would their feet harden over the years? In other words, would they adapt to their surroundings and pass that on to their children? Possible? Well see, in that example you brought up, that's not how it would happen. Because acquired traits do NOT pass on to the descendants. Like if a person cut off his leg, the kid would not be born with a cut off leg. This world would be pretty wierd if that was possible!!!! But, adaptation can happen, but only within limits, within the kind of the organism. And, you can get variation, but also, within limits, within the kind of the organism. That's how we get people with all the different colors and looks. That's how we get dogs and wolves from probably one ancestor. But, we cannot get a human from a monkey or something to the sort. Hope this helps! "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
What sets these "limits?" What is a "kind?" This is awfully well-trodden territory here at EvC, but I've yet to see even a good try at answers to those two questions. You might want to read some old threads here in Biological Evolution before you offer your answers. GOD set those limits! I cannot define kind exactly, it would more likely be like a family, but niether can you define species. Or can you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
please explain the mechanism that limits variation, and prevents variation from compounding. It's not like there is a mechanism for it, to stop a monkey from evolving into a human, or a reptile from evolving into a bird. It is the genetic code of an organism. The code is "preset" when the organism is born. There is code for only the traits and organs and tissues of that organism. No new code can be added to the genetic code of an organism to make it evolve into a different kind of organism. It cannot happen. It never has. It never will. That fish over there will never have code added to it, naturally, to make it start evolving legs or parts of them or something. It's not going to happen. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
You over in the science forums now. Answers like that don't carry much weight. If you have some evidence bring it on but goddidit ain't gonna cut it. I am a Creationist. I believe God created all the creatures, so He set the limits to the variation as well. This is what I believe. This is my reply to the question. I, as a Creationist, cannot offer any other answer, because there is only one answer for this question, "God did it." If you don't want to hear that, then don't ask those questions that have only one answer a Creationist can and will give. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
If you can present evidence that can be independant verified using scientific rigor that can show where there is some barrier that cannot allow microevolution to accumulate over time into macro changes, then fine, bring it on. Until then the evidence that life evolved that humans are just another of the primates, is overwhelming. To deny that takes an act of wilfull ignorance. Ok, let's start with the genetic code. The barrier is the genetic code, the DNA. See, the DNA is preprogrammed when an offspring is born. The code, even with mutations, cannot produce new evolving body parts or tissues or cells. The code of a fish doesn't have anything in it about legs. Now, even if a mutation happened, or millions of them, this would not change the code, the fish still doesn't have any code for legs, or for part of them, or to even start evolving them. So, the fish could not ever evolve legs and crawl out on land, even with many generations filled with mutations, it won't happen. A mutation only changes previously existing information, it cannot make new information for things the creature does not already have. And I am sorry to hear that you are a Creationist who believes in evolution. I am not ignorant, I read my Bible, and I believe God Created all the creatures and plants. And I have yet to see evolution prove itself, macroevolution. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
"A reproductive community." That's pretty vague. Anything more precise? "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
That doesn't seem very likely biblically, as Leviticus 11 (or Deut.14) has "kinds" of herons, hawks, and ravens, and lists owls, great owls, and little owls separately, apparently as "kinds" of their own. That's why I said I can't really define it. Linnaeus probably wouldn't have been able to classify the taxons exactly where the Biblical "kind" could fit in. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
Why? How? What is the barrier? You think we can continue discussing this here? The barrier is the genetic code itself! During meiosis, the information is taken from the parents, and so the offspring will be like the parents. When it is born, the code is preset. The code cannot be altered to allow changes that would start evolving new body parts or something. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
What's vague about it? You don't know what reproduction is? You don't know what a community is? Well, it's just that I could define "kind" in a similar way and say that it is a group of animals with some common characteristics. But that wouldn't cut it in science. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
What is the code for legs? Sorry, I'm not far enough progressed in science to know the exact genetic code for each body part. But I do know enough that it is there in me. There is code for everything of a creature, in it's DNA. Maybe someone else here can tell us. What is the genetic code for legs? But that wouldn't matter for our case here. The fact is the genetic code of a creature only has that code for body parts, tissues, cells, organs, and systems of that particular creature. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
That's because there is no such thing as a "Biblical kind", in the way creationists (ab)use the term. The word "kind" is used in the Bible the same way we use it today: "What 'kind' of dog is that?" or "What 'kind' of ice-cream do you like?" It doesn't imply any fixed barrier at all. Possibly. It's probably more like what you said above than a taxon level. So I can't really define "kind." "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
The code is altered during meiosis. That step where the information is taken from the parents? Sometimes new information is added, through mutation. Yes, the code from the parents combines to form the code of the offspring during meiosis. And yes, some information is altered, but there are also mechanisms which control these mistakes. But the point is, no new information can be added that would be for cells, tissues, organs, systems, body parts, etc, that the organism doesn't already have. You could get a mistake and grow three legs instead of two. But you cannot grow wings if you never had them, or something else to the sort. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
Why not? What prevents it from happening? What is the stopping mechanism? It's not a mechanism, it's the code. The genetic code of an organism, it contains information for cells, tissues, body parts that the organism already has, it doesn't have code for NEW cells or tissues or body parts, that it never had. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
And since you do not know genetic code for body parts, just how do you know that is true? Do you know of something different? Please share with me if you do. I am not a professional scientist, so if I make a mistake, please do correct me. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
Actually we find that's not true. Often the genetic code of a creature contains not just the information for the body parts that it has, but for body parts, tissues, cells, organs, and systems that it used to have, previously in its evolutionary history. For instance, human beings can't manufacture Vitamin C. That's why we have to ingest it to survive. But we have the gene to do it, only it's in a deactivated state. Our evolutionary ancestors were able to synthesize that vitamin, and we inherited the gene, only it's got a stop codon somewhere in the middle, so it doesn't work. Guess what? Primates also can't manufacture vitamin C, and guinea pigs too. So when do you think our "supposed ansectors" did manufacture vitamin C, if the primates didn't?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024