Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution for Dummies and Christians
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 135 of 299 (247279)
09-29-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
09-29-2005 9:16 AM


Re: I'm not following your thinking Thure
I think the basic issue is that it would be a transitional but NOT a transitional species. It would be a link between two species rather than a species in its own right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 09-29-2005 9:16 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by jar, posted 09-29-2005 11:29 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 137 of 299 (247287)
09-29-2005 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by jar
09-29-2005 11:29 AM


Re: I'm not following your thinking Thure
It's a good illustration of the small scale change we should hope to see on a human timescale. And it would certainly be a mistake to ask for direct observations of more dramatic change. That isn't what the theory predicts we should see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by jar, posted 09-29-2005 11:29 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by thure, posted 09-30-2005 2:30 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 147 of 299 (247698)
09-30-2005 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by thure
09-30-2005 2:30 PM


Re: I'm not following your thinking Thure
It's not a case of looking for wiggle room. The evidence is consistent with what we expect to see. Rapid evolution in a few hundred years would agree more with the ideas put forward by some creationists. (The idea is that Noah took relatively few animals on the ark - to get them to fit - and most modern species evolved form there. e.g. there would be one lot of "elephants" and all three existing species, as well as most extinct species, including mammoths and mastodons evolved from that one small group in a few hundred years at most).
Mutation is known to happen and does expand the gene pool. Horizontal transfer (i.e. the transfer of genetic material by mean other than descent) can have a similar effect but it's mainly important to bacteria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by thure, posted 09-30-2005 2:30 PM thure has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by thure, posted 09-30-2005 4:06 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 155 of 299 (247790)
09-30-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by thure
09-30-2005 4:06 PM


Re: I'm not following your thinking Thure
I really suggest that you read up on the other thread mentioned earlier. It is a fact that mutations occur and that they expand the gene pool.
In fact even creationists have no option but to admit it. If there were no mutations and humans all descend from a single couple there could be at most four alleles per gene (i.e. 4 variants of each gene). In fact some human genes have tens or even hundreds of distinct alleles. You cannot deny that mutations expand the gene pool and also maintain that humans are all descended from one original pair.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by thure, posted 09-30-2005 4:06 PM thure 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