Genetics and evolution

[blackumbrella]

You can be such a tard . The two you asked expainations for envolved divine intervention and were supernatural events. I have never nor has anyone else said that they were anything less. For your part however.. you have claimed that the changes that Becca refered to, that I copied and asked you to explain, were and are the result of evolution. You yourself said evolution is a naturalistic explaination. So, your pitiful condesention nothwithstanding, please show the forum a NATURALISTIC EXPLAINATION of:
how amphibians became warm-blooded, where are all the missing links Darwin thought would be found, how lungs developed from gills, how reproductive systems changed from egg-bearing to live birthing, how we get to have a male and a female. Surley the info is at your fingertips.

cheers

i don't know the answer to any of those things, or your personal favorite, how something came from nothing (though as for the darwin part. once again, science doesn't have prophets. nitpicking at 150 year old science doesn't get any more valid bc it's darwin you're nitpicking. also, the hominid skulls in the other thread are all 'missing links' if you insist on using the term). as stated...and actually, please let me know if you don't understand or disagree with what i'm about to say, bc i've certainly said it before--

evolution is not a perfect theory, it's what the experts, scientists, overwhelmingly agree is the best naturalistic theory, one that's still and always will be under construction.

is that clear? disagreeable? just trying to prevent us from going over old ground.

 

[bamabake]

i don't know the answer to any of those things, or your personal favorite, how something came from nothing (though as for the darwin part. once again, science doesn't have prophets. nitpicking at 150 year old science doesn't get any more valid bc it's darwin you're nitpicking. also, the hominid skulls in the other thread are all 'missing links' if you insist on using the term). as stated...and actually, please let me know if you don't understand or disagree with what i'm about to say, bc i've certainly said it before--

evolution is not a perfect theory, it's what the experts, scientists, overwhelmingly agree is the best naturalistic theory, one that's still and always will be under construction.

is that clear? disagreeable? just trying to prevent us from going over old ground.

the hominid skulls in the other thread are all 'missing links' if you insist on using the term).

No they are not. They are no more related to man than chimps are.

I appreciate your conclusion re the questions. There has to be an answer to them. I suppose if one is unwilling to embrace anythiing beyond what you acll naturalistic then one is left with very little in regards to how life began and how we got where we are now.


just trying to prevent us from going over old ground.[/QUOTE]



Thnx

 

[blackumbrella]

unless someone wants to point out bias inherent in genetic mapping techniques, which i'm sure the supreme court and dna evidence folks everywhere would be interested in hearing about, we can agree that the human genome is 98% identical to the chimpanzee genome. now, and here comes an assumption, does it not stand to reason that the critters whose skulls are displayed in the other thread, critters phenotypically much more similar to us than chimps are, would have a genotypes even more like our own (in fact, i beleive neandertal dna has been recovered and this is exactly the case)? if we're created in god's image, does that mean god is 98% chimpazee and 99% neandertal?

 

[BeccaBama]

The human genome contains ~3 billion base pairs. A 2% difference would make ~ 60 million base pair differences. That would mean that time and mutations (errors) would have to make up for the 60 million base pair differences. Not likely. In addition, these mutations would supposedly account for major differences in chimps and humans such as language, intelligence, self-awareness, creativity, etc. It is highly doubtful that mutations could be a contributing factor in the ‘development’ of such characteristics.

 

[bamabake]

The human genome contains ~3 billion base pairs. A 2% difference would make ~ 60 million base pair differences. That would mean that time and mutations (errors) would have to make up for the 60 million base pair differences. Not likely. In addition, these mutations would supposedly account for major differences in chimps and humans such as language, intelligence, self-awareness, creativity, etc. It is highly doubtful that mutations could be a contributing factor in the ‘development’ of such characteristics.

Especially in light of the FACT that mutations produse negatives not improvements. Even if we assumed that they were positives what would the odds be of the above taking place. Astronomical. Also, how come we were lucky ones? Why are there not pig people on an island somewhere going to theatres and writing poetry?

 

[Bamalaw92]

Why are there not pig people on an island somewhere going to theatres and writing poetry?

There are! They profess to be grounds keepers at Columbia University! :biggrin:

Sorry, BU, I couldn't resist. :biggrin:

 

[bamabake]

There are! They profess to be grounds keepers at Columbia University! :biggrin:

Sorry, BU, I couldn't resist. :biggrin:

hehe

 

[blackumbrella]

.
In addition, these mutations would supposedly account for major differences in chimps and humans such as language, intelligence, self-awareness, creativity, etc. It is highly doubtful that mutations could be a contributing factor in the ‘development’ of such characteristics.

yes, good post. though it seems like mutations could certainly 'be a contributing factor', i'd guess that they don't play as large a role as sexual selection and exaptation. let's see if we can't dig up more info. fwi, i think the current thinking is that chimps exhibit all the traits you mention above, though not to human extent of course.

 

[blackumbrella]

Especially in light of the FACT that mutations produse negatives not improvements. Even if we assumed that they were positives what would the odds be of the above taking place. Astronomical. Also, how come we were lucky ones? Why are there not pig people on an island somewhere going to theatres and writing poetry?

since we keep mentioning 'errors' 'negative mutations' etc. it's worth pointing out that mutations are only positive or negative if they confer benefit or detriment to the individual relative to its environment. also, i'm curious as to why this matter keeps being returned to. have we not resolved that natural selection does indeed take place at least within 'species'? also, it strikes me as odd that, if indeed these odds are so astronomically stacked against natural selection, so many geneticists, who are pretty keen mathematicians, have completely overlooked the fact. and even more odd that, when their findings are convenient to the creationist agenda, these findings are

FACT

, but when the same geneticists' findings are hard for creationists to swallow, they are ASSUMING too much. puzzling.

 

[bamabake]

since we keep mentioning 'errors' 'negative mutations' etc. it's worth pointing out that mutations are only positive or negative if they confer benefit or detriment to the individual relative to its environment. also, i'm curious as to why this matter keeps being returned to. have we not resolved that natural selection does indeed take place at least within 'species'? also, it strikes me as odd that, if indeed these odds are so astronomically stacked against natural selection, so many geneticists, who are pretty keen mathematicians, have completely overlooked the fact. and even more odd that, when their findings are convenient to the creationist agenda, these findings are , but when the same geneticists' findings are hard for creationists to swallow, they are ASSUMING too much. puzzling.

Well becca brought it up as it related to the human genome aspect. I brought it up because mutations ARE negative. As for natural selection I would prefer the word adaptation. That is adaptation within the same kind or species. There is no evidence for anything beyond that ie one species becoming another, fish into birds and all of that.

 

[blackumbrella]

Well becca brought it up as it related to the human genome aspect. I brought it up because mutations ARE negative. As for natural selection I would prefer the word adaptation. That is adaptation within the same kind or species. There is no evidence for anything beyond that ie one species becoming another, fish into birds and all of that.

the point though, is that if you acknowledge adaptation, nat selec, whatever you like to call it, you are also acknowledging that mutations can and do have adaptive value, and hence are not always negative. so why continue to harp on the 'negative mutation' point?

 

[bamabake]

the point though, is that if you acknowledge adaptation, nat selec, whatever you like to call it, you are also acknowledging that mutations can and do have adaptive value, and hence are not always negative. so why continue to harp on the 'negative mutation' point?

Not at all. Why do you keep assigning adaptation to mutation? I dont harp by the way. I am simply pointing out, or trting to, the common errors associated with mutation.

 

[blackumbrella]

Not at all. Why do you keep assigning adaptation to mutation?.

well, i don't completely, if you've read my most recent post to cabam. i'm just curious as to what you think the genetic mechanism for adaptation is, since you don't seem to believe favorable mutations play a role. so, how exactly do you think adaptation takes place?

 

[BeccaBama]

Natural Selection uses information from genes that are already present. Take for example the peppered moth. The most predominant form of the moth originally had light colored wings with dark speckles. It had genes already present for dark and light colored wings, the two combined to make the speckled effect. When the industrial revolution occurred making the trees sooty and dark, more and more of the lighter colored moths were eaten, while the darker moths survived. The darker moths reproduced passing on the dominant gene for dark wings while the moths with dominant genes for light wings were diminished. No mutations required. Natural selection selects from the genes already present. The original created kinds had a wide variety of genes allowing them to adapt to many different environments.

 

[blackumbrella]

Natural Selection uses information from genes that are already present. Take for example the peppered moth. The most predominant form of the moth originally had light colored wings with dark speckles. It had genes already present for dark and light colored wings, the two combined to make the speckled effect. When the industrial revolution occurred making the trees sooty and dark, more and more of the lighter colored moths were eaten, while the darker moths survived. The darker moths reproduced passing on the dominant gene for dark wings while the moths with dominant genes for light wings were diminished. No mutations required. Natural selection selects from the genes already present. The original created kinds had a wide variety of genes allowing them to adapt to many different environments.

well, i'm not positive about this, but as i understand it, genes are rarely small in terms of the number of nucleotide pairs that compose them. mutations happen on the nucleotide level, not the gene level. but a mutation of the right nucleotide can have significant effects on the gene. if you dispute the fact that such mutations, single nucleotide mutations, can occur, then lety me knpow and i'll see if i can't track down some info on it. anyway, you might recall that sickle cell disease is the result of just such a mutation, one nucleotide, just one. mutations are harmful right. indeed, if both parents carry the single nucleotide mutated sickle cell gene, then the child has sickle cell disease=harmful mutation. of course, it's also true that those with only one copy of the mutated gene are resistant to malaria, something that might come in handy in tropical parts of africa, something that might help an individual live long enough to reproduce (hence pass the gene on) whereas others without such a resistance might not make it the 13, 14 years to sexual maturity. here's a good website on mutations. note the section on 'indels' which might clear some things up for those of you with 'information addition' qualms. kimball's bio pages

 

[BeccaBama]

I said that mutations are generally, but not always harmful. I can see why you would see the mutation causing sickle cell disease as a good example of beneficial mutations, resistance to malaria is certainly a beneficial side effect. Even so, the mutation is still a defect. It is a defect that can be passed on giving that child the potential for having a child with sickle cell disease, should he/she reproduce with another carrier.

 

[blackumbrella]

I said that mutations are generally, but not always harmful. I can see why you would see the mutation causing sickle cell disease as a good example of beneficial mutations, resistance to malaria is certainly a beneficial side effect. Even so, the mutation is still a defect. It is a defect that can be passed on giving that child the potential for having a child with sickle cell disease, should he/she reproduce with another carrier.

well, specifically, the mutation is beneficial to the individual in which it originally occurs, it's beneficial to any heterozygous offspring, it's neutral for any homozygous offspring not expressing the trait, and it's only harmful to homozygous offspring expressing the trait.

here are some other 'beneficial' mutations.

hiv resistance

lactose tolerance

the lactose piece is particularly interesting. one can see how, after the domestication of animals, those who can stomach the milk have a large advantage over those who can not. it does a body good.

 

[Bamalaw92]

How could you guys let this record setting thread die on the vine?? I was hoping it would evolve and mutate into something beneficial! :biggrin:

 

[ValuJet]

...

 

[bamabake]

Maybe we can merge the question for creationist thread since the author of it has apparently given up or has seen the light