Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 4:56 AM
21 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,218 Year: 9,254/19,786 Month: 1,676/2,119 Week: 436/576 Day: 31/80 Hour: 4/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   What mutations are needed for a particular trait (e.g. wings) to arise?
skepticfaith
Member (Idle past 3888 days)
Posts: 71
From: NY, USA
Joined: 08-29-2006


Message 76 of 111 (346992)
09-06-2006 2:33 PM


Lets get the list then...
Ok -- I am not the expert here.. Just convince me here.. What mutations have been observed that have resulted in physical changes for higher order animals (mammals, birds etc). Nothing drastic, just something that implies or suggests further evolutionary change.
I may have misused the word extraordinary here but if anyone can show me mutations that have been observed recently, I would greatly appreciate it.
BTW I know of the immunity to disease - blood type mutations - excluding those ...
My suspicion and I hope that I am proved wrong is that no such mutations have been observed.
Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-06-2006 3:45 PM skepticfaith has responded
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2006 10:22 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1764 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 77 of 111 (347014)
09-06-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by skepticfaith
09-06-2006 2:33 PM


Re: Lets get the list then...
skepticfaith writes:

Ok -- I am not the expert here.. Just convince me here.. What mutations have been observed that have resulted in physical changes for higher order animals (mammals, birds etc). Nothing drastic, just something that implies or suggests further evolutionary change. [....]

The specialists can field this, but one that comes to mind is the mutation that suppresses the growth of wisdom teeth in humans. This mutation appears with increasing frequency as time goes by and it meets the criteria you state. It is a 'physical change' in 'higher order animals' that 'implies or suggests further evolutionary change.' In this case, the 'further evolutionary change' it 'implies or suggests' is toward smaller jaws and, by further implication, larger brain cases.

Fossil evidence lends support to this hypothesis. Today's Homo sapiens already displays smaller jaws (and larger brain cases) than did archaic Homo sapiens and earlier hominids. The increasing loss of the wisdom teeth would continue a trend already in observable progress.

BTW I know of the immunity to disease - blood type mutations - excluding those ...

On what grounds do you exclude those? You did ask for evidence of physical changes. Changes in blood and body chemistry qualify as much as any other physical change.

Endothermic metabolism, for example, played an important development in the evolution of both birds and mammals. That's a physical change. But you can't point to endothermy like you can point to a feather or a smaller jaw. It happens at the level of blood and body chemistry.

On what grounds do you make this distinction between observable change you will accept as change and observable change you will not accept as change? Please clarify this. Until a rational distinction is established you're only saying 'Show me evidence for change except for some of the evidence for change.'

AO
_

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Concision.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by skepticfaith, posted 09-06-2006 2:33 PM skepticfaith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by skepticfaith, posted 09-06-2006 6:31 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
skepticfaith
Member (Idle past 3888 days)
Posts: 71
From: NY, USA
Joined: 08-29-2006


Message 78 of 111 (347073)
09-06-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Archer Opteryx
09-06-2006 3:45 PM


Re: Lets get the list then...
quote:
On what grounds do you make this personal distinction between observable change you will accept as change and observable change you will not accept as change?

I was just hoping it would be a longer list and not have to see same examples as in other posts. There were some other posters (ID/creationists - I guess) who did not accept them - I did think their argument seemed somewhat reasonable though...

The wisdom teeth example makes sense.

I am hoping there would be more examples along this line..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-06-2006 3:45 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 6:39 PM skepticfaith has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16637
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 79 of 111 (347074)
09-06-2006 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by skepticfaith
09-06-2006 6:31 PM


Re: Lets get the list then...
skepticfaith writes:

I am hoping there would be more examples along this line..

How many elephants have to sit on your couch before you recognize that elephants exist?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by skepticfaith, posted 09-06-2006 6:31 PM skepticfaith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by skepticfaith, posted 09-07-2006 2:08 PM ringo has responded

  
skepticfaith
Member (Idle past 3888 days)
Posts: 71
From: NY, USA
Joined: 08-29-2006


Message 80 of 111 (347300)
09-07-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ringo
09-06-2006 6:39 PM


Ha ha.
quote:
How many elephants have to sit on your couch before you recognize that elephants exist?

Where are the elephants? I have seen elephants in zoos - I don't need them on my couch ....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 6:39 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 09-07-2006 2:54 PM skepticfaith has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16637
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 81 of 111 (347305)
09-07-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by skepticfaith
09-07-2006 2:08 PM


Re: Ha ha.
skepticfaith writes:

I have seen elephants in zoos - I don't need them on my couch ....

I'm guessing that that's supposed to be a joke, because of the subtitle.
(A smilie would be more explicit. :) )

On the off-chance that it's an attempt at sarcasm:

You asked for an example and when you were given an example you asked for more examples.
My question is: how many examples do you need before you concede that there are examples?

Do you think you can keep the other team from scoring if you move the goalposts fast enough?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by skepticfaith, posted 09-07-2006 2:08 PM skepticfaith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-07-2006 8:48 PM ringo has not yet responded
 Message 83 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-07-2006 8:51 PM ringo has not yet responded
 Message 85 by skepticfaith, posted 09-07-2006 9:30 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1764 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 82 of 111 (347378)
09-07-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
09-07-2006 2:54 PM


Re: Ha ha.
The essence of your demands, skepticfaith... 'Well, that's not what I mean, show me this'... comes down to demanding 10 million years of vertebrate evolution in a 10-day experiment. This is not a realistic demand. And it is not needed to substantiate the validity of evolutionary theory.

Thresholds exist that affect our ability to observe. We operate on a human scale and some things in nature operate on vastly different scales. These thresholds have to be worked with as a practical matter, whether we are talking about microbiology (size), paleontology (time) or astronomy (distance).

Thresholds are normal. It would make no sense to deny the existence of protozoans just because we need microscopes to see them. If we've got the data we've got it.

And for evolution we do.

The mechanisms driving evolutionary change have been demonstrated. Mutations and the evolution of new abilities in organisms has been observed. Over time, changes accrue. Over enough time, enough changes can accrue to result in the kinds of metamorphases we see in the fossil record. And the relationships recorded there can be traced backward genetically from modern creatures. And geologists can correlate these findings with climate patterns and the placement of continents and oceans in earth's past. It's a solid theory.

To cite just one more example of vertebrate evolution (besides birds) that demonstrates the changes you want to see:

Wikipedia: Horse Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Talk Origins: Horse Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

BBC: Early Horses and Carnivorous Birds
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1651601.stm

BBC: Genetic Evidence of Horse Evolution in North America
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4618571.stm

But if you're unconvinced by any evolution that takes a microscope to see, and you insist on seeing this level of change with your own eyes with no resort to fossils, here's what you can do.

Take your vitamins and get plenty of exercise. Live 10 million years. Observe.

.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Added link.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Punctuation.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 09-07-2006 2:54 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by skepticfaith, posted 09-07-2006 9:24 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1764 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 83 of 111 (347379)
09-07-2006 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
09-07-2006 2:54 PM


Re: Ha ha.
I remember people saying 'Show me where any organism has been observed to evolve!'

Now they say 'Okay, okay--but show me where any other organisms have been observed to evolve!'

;)


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 09-07-2006 2:54 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
skepticfaith
Member (Idle past 3888 days)
Posts: 71
From: NY, USA
Joined: 08-29-2006


Message 84 of 111 (347384)
09-07-2006 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Archer Opteryx
09-07-2006 8:48 PM


And the mutations observed?
quote:
The essence of your demands, skepticfaith... 'Well, that's not what I mean, show me this'... comes down to demanding 10 million years of vertebrate evolution in a 10-day experiment. This is not a realistic demand. And it is not needed to substantiate the validity of evolutionary theory.

I disagree. You should be able to convince me without going back in time. The driving force of evolution is random mutations and natural selection. We cannot observe physical changes in our lifetimes but we must have observed a few random mutations that have been beneficial ..

Are there not any observed mutations at all ? Just give me the links to them whatever they are.

The links you provided are interesting and yes, the last time I read the horse evolution bit I was convinced..
That is until, I started reading stuff like below:


http://www.sciencevsevolution.com/horseevolution.html

I am not taking one side or the other, but there is a shadow of doubt cast on (macro) evolution - macro meaning large scale evolution between species - excluding very closely related species. That is why some creationists use the word kind since some some species are so closely related they are practically the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-07-2006 8:48 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Belfry, posted 09-07-2006 9:30 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded
 Message 87 by kuresu, posted 09-07-2006 9:37 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2006 11:00 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded
 Message 102 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-08-2006 12:23 AM skepticfaith has not yet responded

  
skepticfaith
Member (Idle past 3888 days)
Posts: 71
From: NY, USA
Joined: 08-29-2006


Message 85 of 111 (347385)
09-07-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
09-07-2006 2:54 PM


Re: Ha ha.
quote:
Do you think you can keep the other team from scoring if you move the goalposts fast enough?

Yes! I can!

And even evolutionists are experts in this!

Consider the issue of time scales:

We never knew at some poing that during the Jurassic that mammals were quite tiny, until a recent discovery disproved this.. No problem..Evolutionists just push back the scales...
Btw - during which era did mammals first arrive and when did they get large/start to flourish?

Same with the split between the common ancestors of chimpanzee and man - pushed back millions of years now ..Sorry - I don't remember the source but it was a farily recent development..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 09-07-2006 2:54 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Belfry, posted 09-07-2006 9:41 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded
 Message 89 by kuresu, posted 09-07-2006 9:42 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 3252 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 86 of 111 (347386)
09-07-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by skepticfaith
09-07-2006 9:24 PM


Re: And the mutations observed?
skepticfaith writes:

Are there not any observed mutations at all ? Just give me the links to them whatever they are.


It's a bit of an odd question, and impossible to answer comprehensively - not because it's rare to observe mutations, but because they have been observed countless times. They happen essentially with every instance of reproduction. There's no way to keep a "list."

Just go to scholar.google.com and enter "observed mutation." If you only want ones that cause observable physical changes, try typing "observed mutation morphology" (but in either case, don't type in the quotes).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by skepticfaith, posted 09-07-2006 9:24 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 87 of 111 (347390)
09-07-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by skepticfaith
09-07-2006 9:24 PM


Re: And the mutations observed?
typical. creationist website that has the gall to say science vs evolution, and then mischaracterize evolution.

Think about what you just read about the pairs of ribs in each horse (or so called horse Eohippus) If the evolution of the horse is true than why the inconsistent number of ribs in each horse; shouldn't the modern horse have more or at least as many as Philohippus? Why does Merychippus have fewer ribs than Eohippus?

Think about what you just read about the toes on each horse. The more modern horse has no more toes; it has a hoof. I thought in evolution you gained faculties not loose them. I guess then in evolution you have to loose something to gain something?

the first one--what the hell? You know--it's equally valid to ask why doesn't the modern horse have less ribs. it's not a major change--adding a rib or taking one away.

second one--two falseities. the hoof--that's a single toe. and in evolution, you can either lose or gain something, but not lose something to gain something. It can happen, sure, but it's not the case every single time. otherwise, how can changes add up over time to lead to speciation? hmm, me smells a strawman being put up. remember, an argument based on strawmen or incredulity are not valid--and that's what's happening here.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by skepticfaith, posted 09-07-2006 9:24 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded

    
Belfry
Member (Idle past 3252 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 88 of 111 (347392)
09-07-2006 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by skepticfaith
09-07-2006 9:30 PM


Re: Ha ha.
skepticfaith writes:

We never knew at some poing that during the Jurassic that mammals were quite tiny, until a recent discovery disproved this.. No problem..Evolutionists just push back the scales...
Btw - during which era did mammals first arrive and when did they get large/start to flourish?

Same with the split between the common ancestors of chimpanzee and man - pushed back millions of years now ..Sorry - I don't remember the source but it was a farily recent development..


That's not shifting the goalpoasts. That's revising theory based on new evidence. That's how science works, and it's a strength, not a weakness.

"Shifting the goalpost" means that you set a criterion for the opposition to meet, and when they meet that criterion, you insist that it is insufficient, and what you really meant was this other criterion...

Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by skepticfaith, posted 09-07-2006 9:30 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 89 of 111 (347393)
09-07-2006 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by skepticfaith
09-07-2006 9:30 PM


Re: Ha ha.
umm, how does revised timescales affect the theory of evolution?

hint--it doesn't. the fact that there were larger mammals (think cat sized) in the cretaceous period doesn't invalidate "natural selection plus mutation".

all it does is effect the history of evolution. and funny thing--that recent discovery--those large mammals don't have any modern day representatives. check out the thread Undermining long held paradigms

its a non-issue. no moving goal posts--they are what they have been--"natural selection plus mutation"


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by skepticfaith, posted 09-07-2006 9:30 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 90 of 111 (347395)
09-07-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by skepticfaith
08-29-2006 5:45 PM


Re: Is it possible mathematically?
Hi guys! I'm back for round 2 of debating! Let's get going, I may not have much time for this when my classes start.

First of all, is it mathematically possible for wings to arrive from random mutations? NO!

Second, percent of mutations that are beneficial- Well, I've got the other side, percent of harmful mutations, you can calculate the percent you need from that... 99.9% of mutations are harmful! But wait! Don't start posting a reply. The EFFECT of a mutation may be beneficial, neutral, or harmful depending on the circumstances, but 99.9% of mutations are BY NATURE harmful. Meaning that the mutation ITSELF is a harmful one. Mutations can destroy genetic information, mess up the information, mix it up, or flip it, or do other things to the sort, but mutations DO NOT add any new genetic information to the genetic code! They can't! No mutation can add in a few strips of genetic code to a creature to make it evolve or start evolving wings. Mutations just can't do it! Mutations ONLY alter the PREVIOUSLY existing genetic code, period. And these random, slight modifications are not what would help evolution of wings or any other thing for that matter. Because evolution, macroevolution, would require great increases in genetic code to make a human from a tiny cell over time. But mutations can't help to do this, they are just incapable of doing it! And without genetic increases, no macroevolution can or will occur! Macroevolution has NEVER been observed! It never happened! And mutations can't help it, neither can natural selection or isolation, ask if you want info on these...

Third, errors due to mutation, YOU BET! See, even if you got one mutation that was beneficial, you would get a bunch of harmful ones following it which would destroy the beneficial one, so it just can't happen! Mutations basically ARE errors!


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by skepticfaith, posted 08-29-2006 5:45 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 09-07-2006 10:09 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019