Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 7:59 PM
25 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones*, edge, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (5 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Genetic Evidence of Major Changes in Body Shapes
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 37 (4060)
02-10-2002 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 10:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
a human with wings possibly or scales or the abililty to breath underwater.


And what would be the purpose of these mutations exactly. Even if human had wings,we could not fly because our bone structure it too heavy. Scales might be usefull to us but then they might also hinder us in some way. Gills to breath underwater? sure,i believe that its concievable but then,we would also have to develope the ability to swim much faster than we do today or we'd fall victim to predators like sharks quite easily. But more to the point,we do not live in environements that require us to develop these mutations to adapt and survive so they wouldn't be much use to ujs anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:20 PM KingPenguin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:03 PM LudvanB has responded

  
sld
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 37 (4063)
02-10-2002 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 10:20 PM


Penguin, how old are you? Are you still in school?

Where is TrueCreation and JohnPaul on this one? They were the ones demanding exactly this type of evidence before they accept evolution. Have they all converted now? Found the true light, ehh?

This article has created quite a stir in both the mainstream scientific community and several other e-c forums, with the c's backing down and scrambling all over the place. One C psuedo-scientist made a comment about the discovery and has now been handed his head on a platter because he completely misstated basic facts about the discovery.

Come on, Creationists, your silence is deafening.

SLD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 10:20 PM KingPenguin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:09 PM sld has not yet responded

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 5963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 18 of 37 (4065)
02-10-2002 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by lbhandli
02-10-2002 10:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
Why? Evolution doesn't posit macromutations. Would you care to deal with the actual theory of evolution, or do you feel like you can just make it up?

you should talk to sld then

sld--"What 24 hours after my post and no creationist response? Come on, we finally have genetic proof of a mechanism for macroevolution. Isn't that what you creationists have been demanding?"

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by lbhandli, posted 02-10-2002 10:49 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by lbhandli, posted 02-11-2002 12:31 AM KingPenguin has not yet responded

    
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 5963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 19 of 37 (4066)
02-10-2002 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by LudvanB
02-10-2002 10:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
And what would be the purpose of these mutations exactly. Even if human had wings,we could not fly because our bone structure it too heavy. Scales might be usefull to us but then they might also hinder us in some way. Gills to breath underwater? sure,i believe that its concievable but then,we would also have to develope the ability to swim much faster than we do today or we'd fall victim to predators like sharks quite easily. But more to the point,we do not live in environements that require us to develop these mutations to adapt and survive so they wouldn't be much use to ujs anyway.

well then you can tell that to your sea cruture that evolved into a land bug.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by LudvanB, posted 02-10-2002 10:55 PM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by LudvanB, posted 02-10-2002 11:09 PM KingPenguin has responded

    
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 37 (4068)
02-10-2002 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 11:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
well then you can tell that to your sea cruture that evolved into a land bug.


But there's a marked difference between us and the sea creature that turned into a land bug. We have the brain capacity to adapt our environement to our needs wereas the critters need to adapt themselves to THEIR environement...this is just theory mind you but perhaps the sea creature mentionned in the article became trapped in a land locked lake that was slowly drying up and so,the critter had to adapt itself to this changing environement or else its population faced extinction. makes sense,dont you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:03 PM KingPenguin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:11 PM LudvanB has responded

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 5963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 21 of 37 (4069)
02-10-2002 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by sld
02-10-2002 10:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sld:
Penguin, how old are you? Are you still in school?

Where is TrueCreation and JohnPaul on this one? They were the ones demanding exactly this type of evidence before they accept evolution. Have they all converted now? Found the true light, ehh?

This article has created quite a stir in both the mainstream scientific community and several other e-c forums, with the c's backing down and scrambling all over the place. One C psuedo-scientist made a comment about the discovery and has now been handed his head on a platter because he completely misstated basic facts about the discovery.

Come on, Creationists, your silence is deafening.

SLD


my age is undetermined, im not sure of when i started thinking on my own. my present physical body is sixteen years of age. the rest of your post is taunting, i think, so ill reply with your head is large in comparison to your body.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by sld, posted 02-10-2002 10:57 PM sld has not yet responded

    
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 5963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 22 of 37 (4070)
02-10-2002 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by LudvanB
02-10-2002 11:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
But there's a marked difference between us and the sea creature that turned into a land bug. We have the brain capacity to adapt our environement to our needs wereas the critters need to adapt themselves to THEIR environement...this is just theory mind you but perhaps the sea creature mentionned in the article became trapped in a land locked lake that was slowly drying up and so,the critter had to adapt itself to this changing environement or else its population faced extinction. makes sense,dont you think?


doesnt that disprove human evolution then? we never need to mutate because of our brain, given to us by God. So we never mutated.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by LudvanB, posted 02-10-2002 11:09 PM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by LudvanB, posted 02-10-2002 11:16 PM KingPenguin has responded
 Message 36 by nator, posted 04-07-2002 9:02 AM KingPenguin has not yet responded

    
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 37 (4072)
02-10-2002 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 11:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
doesnt that disprove human evolution then? we never need to mutate because of our brain, given to us by God. So we never mutated.


Not at all...though the principle of mutations is still not quite understood,it does seem to be closely related to environemental concerns. It is possible that we used to mutate heavily at an earlier time and those mutations considerably slowed down when we reached the stage of thinking hominids with the capacity to modify our environement,thus reducing the stress it placed on our adaptive genes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:11 PM KingPenguin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:20 PM LudvanB has not yet responded
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 02-11-2002 8:34 AM LudvanB has responded

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 5963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 24 of 37 (4073)
02-10-2002 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by LudvanB
02-10-2002 11:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
Not at all...though the principle of mutations is still not quite understood,it does seem to be closely related to environemental concerns. It is possible that we used to mutate heavily at an earlier time and those mutations considerably slowed down when we reached the stage of thinking hominids with the capacity to modify our environement,thus reducing the stress it placed on our adaptive genes.

we would have to be evolving ever generation greatly. there is a large difference between now and a hundred years ago.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by LudvanB, posted 02-10-2002 11:16 PM LudvanB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:20 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 02-11-2002 8:40 AM KingPenguin has not yet responded

    
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 5963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 25 of 37 (4074)
02-10-2002 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 11:20 PM


or is an accumalation of knowledge evolution?

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:20 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by LudvanB, posted 02-11-2002 12:53 AM KingPenguin has not yet responded

    
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 37 (4080)
02-11-2002 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 11:01 PM


Why? I said macromutation which is not macroevolution. Would you like to learn a little about a subject before commenting on it? Cite a recent reference that claims macromutations are necessary.

Cheers,
Larry


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:01 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 37 (4081)
02-11-2002 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 11:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
or is an accumalation of knowledge evolution?


No you dont understand. Evolution,weather it micro or macro is driven by the stress the environement places on a given species. Evolution,it would seems,is the natural mechanism that living organism are endowed with to respond to that stress. And if you go from there,then it would appear logical that the rate of evolution is directly related to the amount of stress the environement places on living organism. Human beings have a rather unique ability of being capable to almost completely adapt its environement to fit THEIR needs,thus considerably reducing the stress the environement normally imposes on us and by extention,reducing our biological need to "mutate" if you will,to adapt to this environement.

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-11-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:20 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3275 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 28 of 37 (4099)
02-11-2002 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by LudvanB
02-10-2002 11:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
Not at all...though the principle of mutations is still not quite understood,it does seem to be closely related to environemental concerns. It is possible that we used to mutate heavily at an earlier time and those mutations considerably slowed down when we reached the stage of thinking hominids with the capacity to modify our environement,thus reducing the stress it placed on our adaptive genes.

Probably not, mutations need to be culled by natural selection. Every organism in a species having too many mtations at one time will result in extinction.

Different genes mutate at different rates, there is no evidence that there was a "fast" period, indeed, the problem is, that it is literally lethal.

I'm not sure where you get the environment being responsible for mutations. It most certainly is responsible for some, but is it responsible for MOST mutations?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-11-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by LudvanB, posted 02-10-2002 11:16 PM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by LudvanB, posted 02-11-2002 12:08 PM mark24 has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3275 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 29 of 37 (4100)
02-11-2002 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 11:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
we would have to be evolving ever generation greatly. there is a large difference between now and a hundred years ago.


What great difference is there betweeen now & 100 years ago, that involved the fixing of mutant alleles in the general population? This is what evolution is, after all (they don't have to be mutant, but large change over time means mutant genes).

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:20 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

    
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 37 (4143)
02-11-2002 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mark24
02-11-2002 8:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:

Probably not, mutations need to be culled by natural selection. Every organism in a species having too many mtations at one time will result in extinction.

Different genes mutate at different rates, there is no evidence that there was a "fast" period, indeed, the problem is, that it is literally lethal.

I'm not sure where you get the environment being responsible for mutations. It most certainly is responsible for some, but is it responsible for MOST mutations?

Mark


I think so to a degree and this would certainly go a long way toward explaning the crustacean turning into a fly over time...as a result of its changing environement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 02-11-2002 8:34 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mark24, posted 02-11-2002 4:29 PM LudvanB has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019