Creationists benefit directly from the Theory of Evolution

1) It's not a matter of perspective. Speciation IS evolution.2) It is about the species sharing GENES (and it would make no sense to say that they "shared mutations" if that were not true).APC is expressly identified as a gene in the OP, not a "mutational factor", and yes a common ancestor does account for shared genes.

1. I think it is a matter of perspective according to the fourth dimension. One cannot infer absolutely, that micro=macro, when it could also be that micro = available information.So far, mutations seem to have shown derogatory characteristics but not beneficial.Although APC is a gene, MUST it be that a common ancestor caused this? Do not we also share genes in many instances? I suppose hearts in organisms could shoe common ancestry, or a common designer.

1) Stating that speciation is evolution is not equating micro with macro on at least two solid grounds. Firstly speciation IS macroevolution by the definition usually used by biologists. But more importantly by definition microevolution IS evolution. Creationists usually only use the mico/macro distinction to mark the boundary between evolution they are prepared to accept and that they do not.2) I beleive there have been threads here discussing examples of beneficial mutations. Come to that there is a currently active thread on the acquisition of antibiotic resistance through mutation.3) Shared genes are evidence of common ancestry, more so than an organ labelled a heart (convergence at a morphological level is usually easier than at the genetic level). And common design is less likely to produce shared genes than common ancestry on the simple grounds that it is far easier for a designer to craft completely new genes than it would be for evolutionary processes.

It doesn't matter that the mutation studied is not beneficial. The important point is that organisms as seemingly different as fruit flies, mice, and humans are useful in the same study because they have a remarkable amount in common. Without the ToE it is unlikely that we would have even considered the fruit fly a legitimate organism for genetic study.Bats and bees both have wings, but we don't pretend they're sister species. I don't understand your argument about genes.If you want another example of how everybody benefits from the ToE, genetically modified crops is a good one.

It seems the APC is a tumor suppressor gene. Why it's simply easy to see why a designer would put it in there now isn't it? Mutations are the problem, as that's is what causes the cancer. Nobody has divulged as to what has the gene. I only know of what has been mentioned. So any conclusions about common ancestry can't be made by me.What proves the gene is shared and not simply a part of each organism?

You know if you are trying to discuss the claims in the original post you really ought to read it carefully. Then you would know which organisms it said had the APC gene.

It would be illogical to assume the only organisms on the planet with the gene are those mentioned in the OP, which I read just fine.I said, "I only know of what has been mentioned".This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-13-2005 06:24 PM

Sorry GFA, I don't understand your post. (Man, I'm really dense tonight. Must have been the presentation I gave today, or something.)

Well of course they aren't the only ones. But why would you need a complete list ? In fact if fruit flies and humans have it then it is going to be very common.

I guess that I need a list if I want to know as to how this means there must be a common ancestry.If every organism on the planet has it, then does that mean common ancestry? If a few do, how are those species connected pertaining to taxa? Are you saying we evolved from a mouse now?I suppose one could say anything shared in nature = evolution. Come on Paul, atleast convince me rather than dodging everything I say.

No, you don't need a list. That creatures as distant as man and a fruit fly have a shared gene is evidence of common ancestry in itself.If you want more information then why do not your own research rather than asking me to do it for you ?And less of the accusations of "dodging" please when you asked a question which amounted to "what proves that the gene is shared instead of being shared" (Message 20)

You don't seem to understand what a protein being a 'tumor supressor' actually means. It isn't that the function of APC is to supress tumors. APC is part of the Wnt signalling pathway which is important in a wide variety of developmental processes. Cancer is usually caused by a mutation leading to a reversion to a quasi-developmental state where the affected cells produce multiplying undifferentiated or poorly differentiated tissue.The role of APC is not to supress cancer, it is simply that one predisposing factor to the development of cancer is the disruption of the normal Wnt signalling pathway.TTFN,WK

So it's important? In what species? In everyone? In every species? Let's pretend I don't know for a moment. Sheesh, I'm not going to know am I? I'm not a scientist, nor are my interests biology. That's fair enough, I was just believing what I was reading. Isn't it leading to the same thing as supressing it though? Even if unintentionally from our point of view, but not a designers? It seems it's important in a "wide variety" of things. Why wouldn't the designer add it again?

It is important in a lot of species. Most developmental pathways are highly conserved and Wnt signalling is seen in all vertebrates in which development has been studied in any detail as well as a large number of invertebrate species from fruit flies to nematodes. Do you think that people who design cars give them wheels so that you aren't annoyed by the noise caused by your chassis scraping along the road? Why not just create a common ancestor with it from which all APC posessing creatures can evolve, better still why not just create a universe allowing the operation of natural laws permitting the evolution of life? Why not use exactly the same gene rather than all these variations on a theme? Why not use a completely different gene but with exactly the same function? Why not go mad?TTFN,WK