5 online now:	LamarkNewAge, Omnivorous, Percy (Admin), Phat, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,745 Year: 4,002/9,624 Month: 873/974 Week: 200/286 Day: 7/109 Hour: 3/0

EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Biological Evolution ⇒

front loading: did evos get it backwards

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: front loading: did evos get it backwards

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2131 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 13 of 164 (471124)
06-14-2008 5:16 PM

Reply to: Message 12 by randman
06-14-2008 4:50 PM

This is in stark contrast to the NeoDarwinian hypothesis of a slow accumulation of genes via random mutation and natural selection.

I think you have this wrong. Could you please supply some documentation?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 12 by randman, posted 06-14-2008 4:50 PM		randman has not replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2131 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 27 of 164 (471372)
06-16-2008 12:39 PM

Reply to: Message 26 by randman
06-16-2008 12:35 PM

There is not a slow accumulation of genes via random mutation and natural selection, at least not for the bulk of plants and animals. So when people observe microevolution, they are not observing the process that evolved the design of organisms, their genes.

Is it possible that what we are seeing is changes in genes and the other things that express those genes?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 26 by randman, posted 06-16-2008 12:35 PM		randman has not replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2131 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 32 of 164 (471383)
06-16-2008 1:34 PM

Reply to: Message 31 by randman
06-16-2008 1:25 PM

Re: Types of genes?

ND predicts a gradual accumulation of genes and genetic complexity with random mutation and natural selection resulting in novel traits. Now, I know plenty of evos try to avoid this and say, well, evolution can occur via a loss of genes....sure, but the pattern predicted by ND means that you can't just get some massive, complex genome without new morphology.

I pointed this out before, but you ignored my post.

How about changes in genes and gene expression instead of addition or loss of genes? As far as I know, the theory of evolution is based on change in the genome.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 31 by randman, posted 06-16-2008 1:25 PM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 34 by randman, posted 06-16-2008 2:20 PM		Coyote has replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2131 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 35 of 164 (471393)
06-16-2008 2:24 PM

Reply to: Message 34 by randman
06-16-2008 2:20 PM

So the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the evolution and origination of genes?

Near as I can recall from my grad school days the theory of evolution dealt with change in the genome.

The fledgling field of abiogenesis dealt with origins.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 34 by randman, posted 06-16-2008 2:20 PM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 36 by randman, posted 06-16-2008 3:05 PM		Coyote has not replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2131 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 77 of 164 (472291)
06-21-2008 4:53 PM

Reply to: Message 76 by Force
06-21-2008 4:45 PM

Neanderthals & sapiens

What about the evolution between H.Neanderthals and H.Sapien? What was lost? I also went to mention that new genes are not aquired through "aquired traits" they are aquired through mutation.

It doesn't look like Neanderthals evolved into H. sapiens. The two lines split something like 500,000 years ago and Neanderthal just took a long time going extinct.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 76 by Force, posted 06-21-2008 4:45 PM		Force has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 78 by Force, posted 06-21-2008 5:08 PM		Coyote has replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2131 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 79 of 164 (472302)
06-21-2008 5:21 PM

Reply to: Message 78 by Force
06-21-2008 5:08 PM

Re: Neanderthals & sapiens

Nice quotations.

The fact still remains Neanderthal did not evolve into H. sapiens.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 78 by Force, posted 06-21-2008 5:08 PM		Force has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 80 by Force, posted 06-21-2008 5:24 PM		Coyote has replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2131 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 81 of 164 (472308)
06-21-2008 5:35 PM

Reply to: Message 80 by Force
06-21-2008 5:24 PM

Re: Neanderthals & sapiens

Take a look at the following image:

Note that Neanderthal is not an ancestor to H. sapiens. Both descended from an earlier form, H. heidelbergensis.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 80 by Force, posted 06-21-2008 5:24 PM		Force has not replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2131 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 86 of 164 (472317)
06-21-2008 5:58 PM

Reply to: Message 83 by Force
06-21-2008 5:48 PM

Re: Neanderthals & sapiens

Force, perhaps you should study up a bit more on fossil man and evolution. You are making some very basic errors.

The Wiki article on Neanderthal would be a good start:

Neanderthal - Wikipedia

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 83 by Force, posted 06-21-2008 5:48 PM		Force has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button