quote:The genome of any given creature has only the stuff that makes that creature and no others. Mutations may change some of the particular expressions of some of its particular code, but it cannot do anything beyond the parameters set by the genome.
Mutations change the genome. By definition. That’s how they can produce traits outside the “parameters set by the [previous] genome”. As seen with the pocket mice and the Scottish Fold cat.
quote:Which you'd know if you weren't under the spell of the ToE and were free to think instead.
It is funny how your idea of “thinking” seems to equate to mindlessly agreeing with you.
quote:And of course you don't bother to say how "evolution" is some kind of real alternative, which of course it isn't. Evolution can't happen. You have this strong faith that it can and does but that's all you have. It can't happen
We also have plenty of evidence that evolution is the explanation and that it can happen. All you have is faith in your own failed arguments.
quote:If the genetic stuff isn't built into the genome of the "evolving" creature all you have is trial and error despite your "not by a long shot." How many millions of trials do you think it would take to get from the reptile type of ear to the mammal type of ear? It can't happen.
First, evolution has no specific targets. The changes that happen are those that happen. Second, millions if “trials” are available. Consider population sizes and timescales. Third culmulative selection is in play. Not only is it all but inevitable, the existence of intermediate forms is strong evidence of it.
You say that it can’t happen, but offer no strong reasons to think so. The evidence strongly supports the idea that it did happen. Why should we prefer your opinions to the evidence?
Mutations usually change the sequence of a gene and only affect what that gene does. If they affect something structural like a HOX gene they rearrange the parts, they don't add anything new. If a mutation gives you a four chambred heart in a creature with three normal chambers it's going to be a useless addition, not a step to a new creature.
No, millions of trials are NOT available. That means millions of neutral changes that do nothing, plus a bunch of weird useless changes, including many lethal, and even if you get one that could lead to a useful new functioning organ you need millions more to add to it. YES I KNOW for pete's sake that evolution doesn't have an AIM, but the task here is to imagine how a mammalian part COULD HAVE evolved from a reptilian part. That's not too hard for your highly evolved homo sapien brain is it?
quote:Mutations usually change the sequence of a gene and only affect what that gene does. It they affect something structural like a HOX gene they rearrange the parts, they don't add anything new.
Mutations can also add genes - usually copies of existing genes, but not always. And let me remind you that what a gene does is encode the structure of a protein that may be used in many places and for many purposes.
I will also add that the change from the mammalian to the reptilian ear is a change in the arrangement of parts - with changes to the shapes and sizes and uses of those parts.
quote:If a mutation gives you a four chambred heart in a creature with three normal chambers it's going to be a useless addition, not a step to a new creature.
Or so you assume. I think that a little more argument is required. Although the ear would be better since we have more fossil evidence to identify the actual changes.
quote:No, millions of trials are NOT available
Of course they are. Mutations are not rare, and the populations involved must add up to truly massive numbers.
quote:That means millions of weird useless changes, including many lethal, and even if you get one that could lead to a useful new functioning organ you need millions more to add to it. YES I KNOW for pete's sake that evolution doesn't have an AIM, but the task here is to imagine how a mammalian part COULD HAVE evolved from a reptilian part.
Why would we need to imagine it when we have evidence showing how it happened?
The evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles was an evolutionary event in which bones in the jaw of reptiles were co-opted to form part of the hearing apparatus in mammals. The event is well-documented and important as a demonstration of transitional forms and exaptation, the re-purposing of existing structures during evolution.
Really FaIth, you should do the research instead of relying on forcefully presenting your own uninformed opinions and expecting agreement. And to continue on that way when you have been answered is nothing more than bullying.
The genome of any given creature has only the stuff that makes that creature and no others.
Every creature is born with DNA not found in either parent due to germline mutations. This has been directly observed. For example, we have observed that humans are born with between 50 and 100 substitution mutations.
So what stops this process? If each person is born with mutations, what would stop them from accumulating over many generations?
Mutations may change some of the particular expressions of some of its particular code, but it cannot do anything beyond the parameters set by the genome.
If it changes expression, then it has gone beyond the parameters.
Two important points here: 1) Your complaint that evolution "hasn't been observed" is a straw man. Evolution is a slow process, claiming that it doesn't happen because the millions of years it took for humans and chimps to evolve from a common ancestor means modern scientists cannot "observe" it doesn't mean it didn't happen. As far as I'm aware, when Darwin and Wallace established evolution nobody had yet observed a new species evolving. Think of plate tectonics: you can't see new continents forming over a weekend! 2) Evolution of new species has been observed. Not in primates, obviously, but in flowers and worms and such. If there are more species of such things now than there were in the past either your deity miraculously created new species or they evolved naturally. Here are some examples;
1. A population of worms separated into two populations (one in a lab) diverged until they could no longer interbreed.
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
2. A new species of grass evolved that can tolerate soil contaminated with mine tailings.
quote:speciation Parapatric speciation sometimes happens when part of an environment has been polluted. Mining activities leave waste with high amounts of metals like lead and zinc. These metals are absorbed into the soil, preventing most plants from growing. Some grasses, such as buffalo grass, can tolerate the metals. Buffalo grass, also known as vanilla grass, is native to Europe and Asia, but is now found throughout North and South America, too. Buffalo grass has become a unique species from the grasses that grow in areas not polluted by metals. Long distances can make it impractical to travel to reproduce with other members of the species. Buffalo grass seeds pass on the characteristics of the members in that region to offspring. Sometimes a species that is formed by parapatric speciation is especially suited to survive in a different kind of environment than the original species.
3. Mice brought from Europe to Madeira islands diverge into new species.
quote:Are new species still evolving? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)) A small handful of European mice deposited on the island of Madeira some 600 years ago have now evolved into at least six different species. The island is very rocky and the mice became isolated into different niches. The original species had 40 chromosomes, but the new populations have anywhere between 22-30 chromosomes. They haven't lost DNA, but rather, some chromosomes have fused together over time and so the mice can now only breed with others with the same number of chromosomes, making each group a separate species.
4. Flowers introduced into a new environment produce new species.
quote:Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
Here is an example of humans breeding new species.
quote:The Natural History of Wheat | Encyclopedia.com Varieties of wheat that have forty-two chromosomes are the most recently evolved and most used types of wheat. All of these varieties have been cultivated by humans (as opposed to growing wild). They are hybrids of twenty-eight-chromosome wheats and wild fourteen-chromosome wheats or grasses. Early bread wheat was the result of the crossing of goat grass (Aegilops tauschii ) with Triticum turgidum. Modern bread wheat varieties have forty-two chromosomes and evolved from crosses between emmer and goat grass, which is the source of the unique glutenin genes that give bread dough the ability to form gluten. Goat grass grows abundantly in the region stretching from Greece to Afghanistan. Descriptions of the fourteen species of wheat that yield the thousands of wheat varieties grown today are provided here.
quote:One thing that's interesting about this is that it shows to be false the interpretation of the "fossil record" as reflecting increasing complexity. But my main response to this is that we don't know what chromosome count the original Kinds possessed and there's nothing very persuasive about what "we would expect" to be the case, so I'd drop that one if I were you.
First, this is another example of the ignorance creationists have for science. While it is true that over time more complex organisms have evolved (it could hardly be otherwise considering that the first living organisms were necessarily small in volume and mass) evolution does NOT prescribe that life must evolve unidirectionally to greater size and complexity. Just consider the mammalian forms that went back into the oceans, with descendants having fewer limbs!
Second, when you imply the "original Kinds" had a different chromosome count you are implying that modern forms of life have a different number of chromosomes than older forms! If that's not evolution, what is? Are you really saying the "original Kinds" had a different chromosome count?
My point is that if you sincerely try to think through the trial and error required to get from one type of heart to the one you think it evolved to, you will discover that it is simply impossible. Try it for the task of evolving the mammalian ear from the reptilian. Sincerely, I said.
I am just trying to describe what is possible using my own understanding of biology. Is there any reason to think I’m being insincere in this? In the case of the heart we know a thickening of the ventricular wall will split it into two ventricles because that is what happens to our own heart during foetal development and results from how and when our genes are expressed. This change prevents oxygenated blood from the lungs mixing with deoxygenated blood returning from the rest of the body, which makes it more efficient, especially as we need a constant supply of oxygen as endotherms to maintain our internal body temperature. This is not as important for frogs and reptiles as they use the environment to control body temperature, but even a partial change in the shape of the ventricle wall, as in the 3.5 chambers mentioned by dwise1, will help to control the flow and reduce this mixing. As you mentioned, the formation of the ear is another example of this principle. During foetal development we see formation of the Meckel's cartilage. Most of this cartilage becomes absorbed into our lower jaw, but part of it splits off and migrates to form bones of the middle ear. Again this is controlled by expression of our genes, and some of the intermediary steps are reflected in some reptile fossils, so we know it is possible.
The point is that changes is gene expression during development can affect an individuals physiology, which would be described as variation within the population, but over many generations and favourable selection this variation can come to dominate the population. So a 3-chamber heart can become 4-chambered, or to give another example, a reptiles jaw can become broader and the musculature of their intestine can be modified. This is why I tried the analogy of origami, but I’m guessing it wasn’t as helpful as I hoped. Such is the way with analogies.
When life starts as single cell or less organisms there is initially only one direction it can go, towards increased complexity. But once there are more complex critters there are three directions, more complex, less complex and same complexity.
Basics Faith. Learn the basics you have been taught over the last nineteen years here at EvC.
Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:But a mutation is nothing more than an altered allele, a change in the existing genetic stuff, not anything that changes the existing stuff into something else. It's still the same gene, with a different sequence.
Not sure what you mean by this. You say that mutations are changes but then you say they are not anything that changes!
Are you perhaps saying that these are changes, changes great enough to produce different species but that isn't enough to provide evidence of evolution to you?
quote:My own view is that we don't know what the original created Kinds looked like but they contained all the genetic possibilities for all the variations we see today
This is, of course, a statement that the "originals" evolved into the creatures now living. Unless you're saying that at some time in the far past ALL the life forms we see today and that we also have fossil evidence for in the past were ALL existing at the same time (except for your brown bear/polar bear variations and such).
quote:What we have today have "microevolved" down the centuries from whatever their original Kind looked like, or even from whatever version of the Kind was on the ark or in the case of marine creatures, survived in the Flood water.
If your "microevolution" extends to things like whales descending from land creatures with limbs (vestigial leg bones) then it's something rather more than "micro" evolution, isn't it?
By the way, how did all those fish that require salt water survive when the rain during the "Flood" reduced the salinity of the oceans (or if the rains were salty, how did the freshwater fish survive?)