The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[carlosMM]

Natural selection and variations are not what creationist are against, what creationist are against is that every living thing on earth evolved from one living thing.

Varieties do not show how every thing could come from one thing. The variations we have seen take place, to the date, can not explain how all living things could have come from one, it only explains how varieties came to be.

Variation and Natural Selection are both necessary for evolution to work.

SO i think you will see the need to first prove that they exist, before we go on?

I do not know where you got those numbers, but every creationist I know of claim that variation, and natural selection happens. But, they claim that it is more limited than evolutionist once thought it was.

I got them from several years experience in this forum.

If things change to a new species, and then do not change any more then that is no problem for the creationist. And we have seen so far that they can not change far enough (to do what evolutionist claim) the way they are changing now.

se, there we get to an old problem: what is a species? Most creationists will demand a species 'jump' that is impossible, then say it can't happen.
They will alos deny that a number of small changes will in the long run add up to a large change - large enough for a new species.

That is basically all that evolution is

 

[Perfection]

Yes, but it can not be used as evidence for evolution, just because there is Natural selection doesn't mean that every living thing can from a single cell.

You used some thing called it evidence for evolution then after he shows how it's not evolution saying well it's evidence for Natural selection. Who cares if it's evidence for Natural selection? We all know that there is Natural selection. Sorry if that offends you, I was just trying to point out there is no use in using Natural selection as evidence for evolution.

Well, the existance of natural selection is not the only part that's required for evolution! What must be shown is the power of natural selection.

Now here's a good demonstration on the power of it. Let's assume for simplicity sake we have a population of animals, let's say they are on average 35 cm tall, and the biggest is 36cm and the smallest is 34cm. Now let's say we allow mutations, these will make an animal taller or shorter by .1 cm. Undirected this will lead to staying at the average of 35cm with vary rare instances where it goes over 36 or under 34, but with natural selection favoring the tall, we can see hieghts increase to sizes not seen before, the key to evolution rests on the idea of natural selection allowing for the compounding of variation. So natural selection is thoroughly ingrained in evolution because it provides a means to compound variation.

Varieties do not show how every thing could come from one thing. The variations we have seen take place, to the date, can not explain how all living things could have come from one, it only explains how varieties came to be.

Not every minute detail, but evidence certainly it demonstrates the power of mutation, new functionality and new structures have been shown to exist.

If things change to a new species, and then do not change any more then that is no problem for the creationist. And we have seen so far that they can not change far enough (to do what evolutionist claim) the way they are changing now.

What would by "far enough" for you? If a species can change to another to another to another don't you think that eventually it could change it's genus?

 

[Phydeaux]

Actually that contradiction is the precise reason why punctuated equilibrium was developed. There was something wrong with strict-darwinian theory, punctuated equilibrium corrects the theory.

So, let me ask you some thing. Ok lets say we have a number line, lets say a good mutation is every 10 bad mutations, so we have some thing like this:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30...ect

It wouldn't be the same every time, but it would be close. That would be the old idea of evolution slow calm evolution. With PE we would need them much closer, the idea is that they come all the sudden, like this:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23...ect

Yes, the numbers would be much greater, and the good mutations would be a bunch of good ones in one. But how could they group together like that? Good mutations are rare they don't all the sudden come up like that, they are spaced out between lots of bad ones.

Maybe I just don't understand the theory, but if so maybe you can explain.
Thanks.

 

[Perfection]

Just for reference, most mutations are not bad, most are indifferent

Now here's basicly the idea behind punctuated equilibrium, an organism well-adapted remains roughly the same due to stablizing selection, now if in some location things change, the animals are going to undergo a change with it (kind of like the radical change seen in the fox domestication expiriment). So as the environment changes what becomes beneficial changes and the animals change with it.

 

[Phydeaux]

funny, first you say there are NO transitionals, then it is too few - ONE SINGLE transitional is enough to kick your theory out the window. WE have thousands. Millions, actually.

... Come on man, why do we have to go through this you know what I ment, don't you?

becasue you do not understand evolution. Sorry, but until you can give a clear definition on how the ToE says small genetic change (single base mutations and gene duplication, e.g.) can result in massive changes (e.g. speciation) I will not bother to discuss the time needed for it with you.

I supose I do not then. I do not know what there claims are on how a small mutation could make a big change, I guess I should look.

hm, what you descirbe, coexistence of 'parent' spceies with newly evolved more specialized species , is predictable through the ToE. And I have seen a NUMBER of slow changes in the John Day Fossil beds - roughly same age.....

Yes, but they are unchanged for 1 million years, so what if some thing was said to to have changed in 10 million years (like with whales)? If it changed only once every million years then it would not be changed enough to hange into a whale. I do not have enough time to explain but you do the math.

Do they have other places they talk about them? I havn't seen them on evolutionist web pages, or books.

but, essentially, you must just go and define the minimum alteration between one species and another as insufficent to be transitional :rollleyes:

None of the changes we have seen happen, happen in a way that abunch of them put in one can cuase a cell to evolve into all we have today. Shure you can make it so they can't mate any more but, that doesn't really matter. You can't get them to evolve now orgens and stuff, I don't really have time to explain but ask and I will answer later.

landlocked Dinosaurs living today in an extremly remote location with special adaptations are well within the ToE. Just not within our knowledge of the plante's surface.
dinosaurs with the capability of flight - I see them every day

Well could they be in some place like africa, where not many people are?

 

[Perfection]

I supose I do not then. I do not know what there claims are on how a small mutation could make a big change, I guess I should look.

well, one of the keys is if you can get it so they don't want to mate with the other it's likely speciation will occur, like in carlosMM's smell example. Also single base pair mutations can affect numerous body systems.

Yes, but they are unchanged for 1 million years, so what if some thing was said to to have changed in 10 million years (like with whales)? If it changed only once every million years then it would not be changed enough to hange into a whale. I do not have enough time to explain but you do the math.

First of whale evolution was longer than that, second off when they say it cahanged of x million years, they include times of stasis when relatively little change occurs

None of the changes we have seen happen, happen in a way that abunch of them put in one can cuase a cell to evolve into all we have today. Shure you can make it so they can't mate any more but, that doesn't really matter. You can't get them to evolve now orgens and stuff, I don't really have time to explain but ask and I will answer later.

By messing with Hox genes we've gotten new structures to form

Well could they be in some place like africa, where not many people are?

He never said they couldn't be.

 

[ybbor]

just out of curiosity can someone show me a picture of whale skeleton? i can't find any good ones off google

 

[carlosMM]

ybbor: I will post a few nice pics plus articles, describing whale evolution in detail. But you will ahve to give me some time - off-work-topic books are at home. I do dinosaurs, not mamals, so the relevant books aren'r handy. And i will have to search for good figures.

 

[Japher]

In nature whales contain worms that eat their skeletons and remains after they die, unless a human clean it.

 

[Sims2789]

^I think he needs one of a side view that shows the floating hip bone from the wolf-like animal that the whale evolved from.

 

[carlosMM]

Phydeaux:
I'll explain gene expression first:

a gene is nothing but the order to produce a protein (often an enzym) with a specific sequence of aminoacids, and information when and how to use it. Also, more genes regulate when and to what amount what gene is being 'read', by encoding special information that leads to active or block other genes..

Admittedly, the process of 'reading' and 'translating' a gene into a protein is not fully understood. In school, we are taught that one gene encodes information for one protein. We are also taught that the full gene is read and the full DNA sequence is translated into mRNA, and from there into an aminoacid-sequence. Today, we know this is not true. The full gene is read, but part of the mRNA (messenger RNA - because it transports the info from the nucleus to the ribosomes) is then cut out. The rest may be fused into ONE strand or SEVERAL. How this works EXACTLY is unknown and being studied. The general process is understood, but I will not detail it here.

Basically, though, the process is well-known: a certain DNA sequence is transscribed into a mRNA sequence, which contains a mirror-image of the information. The mRNA leaves the nucleus, migrates to the ribosomes, where again a mirror-image is produced, this time using tRNA. Attached to each specific tRNA (each is three DNA-bases long) is a specific aminoacid. These are then fuesd and separated from the tRNA. This so-called translation produces the protein encoded in the DNA, and mirror-imaged in the mRNA.


So, what we get from a gene is an enzym.
Each enzym has a specific sequence of aminoacids (ACs). Each enzym has thus - determined by its sequence of ACs - a spcific way of folding the long strand up into either a beta-folding structure or an alpha-helix. The pruimary structure - the AC sequence - exactly dictates that secondary structure cna be achieved. Then, the entire thing fols into a tertiary structure, or, if non-protein-'additives' are included, a quaratery structure.

This means that the DNA through the mRNA and tRNA and AC sequence EXACTLY controls what the finaly enzym will look like.


Each enzym has - through its specific form - the capability to bond to specific substances, its substrate. Once bonded the substance or substances will be subjected to a biochemical reaction that cannot take place without the enzym. Enzyms catalyse reactions! Almost no chemical reaction in a living being takes place without an enyzm controlling it!

This means that a slight change in the DNA, resulting in a slight change in the mRNA and AC sequence will elad to a slight to major change in the enzyme structure and form, thus also its ability to bond to its substrate.

From this, it is easy to conclude that a small DNA change can resul ins dramatic change in the subtrate affected and the product achieved by the enzym's work on the substrate! Sudden production of new pigments or sudden lack of color are a typical example of a small change: the enzym breaks the substrate from which the pigment should be produced down (or merges it with something else) in the 'wrong' way. Oops, the product may be poisonous, harmless - but also colorless, or may be a new pigment that gives a slightly to massively different color.


enoug for one post....

 

[carlosMM]

^I think he needs one of a side view that shows the floating hip bone from the wolf-like animal that the whale evolved from.

as I said: gimme a day!

 

[carlosMM]

more.....


now, as said before, genes do not only control enyzms for daily 'operation', but also (socalled HOX genes), WHEN and HOW LONG WHAT gene is being read.

Let's say a gene encoding how long the genes controlling growth of the legs is read suddenly is changed a bit - and thus is active slightly longer. the critter will grow slightly to massively longer legs. One thing to notice is that a genes reaction ont hebbody is 'delayed' through the process of 'using' it through proteins and the entire metabolism.

So what does a slight change in a HOX gene controlling embryonal leg growth mean?
It may meant he kid animals has legs slightly longer than the paretns, enabling it to run a bit faster (at, admittedly, higher energy consumption).
A different change may result in hsorter legs - anabling the offspring to crouch into low fox dens or simply reducing the risk of breaking a leg, as they now are more stable (lenght/width is a good measure for resistance to bending moments). Admittedly, at the cost of a slower running speed.

Normally, both mutations will be weeded out. What good is it if you can run fast and catch some mor eprey if you regularly break a leg when falling?
What good is it when you never break a leg - but always go hungry?


But let's imagine that we are e.g. talking about a small predator, hunting hare-sized prey. And let's assume that for what reason ever the plant cover changes a bit, resulting in a more open landscape with more grass and fewer trees.
Suddenly, the faster runner - at the higher risk of breakign a leg - will have a decided advantage! He cans still reach prey that his slightly slower relatives will not reach - simply becasue the open landscape gives the prey enough early warnign to run away!

At the same time, the shorter legged animal will be in trouble! Ambush doesn't work well when the prey can see you from 100 yards off!

What will happen?

Well, obviously, despite the risk of breaking a leg, the laonger legged animal will have ahigher chance of not starving, thus producing more offsprings. Thsi means that now the 'damages' HOX gene will be the 'standard' HOX gene!

At the same time, the slightly changed behaviour and environment will aslo select for OTHER slightly changed 'abnormalities' - after all, the ols 'standard' was adapted to previous conditions, whcih now have changed! For example an aberrant lighter fur color may be selcted for - grassland tends to be better light and lighter colored than bushlands or forests! Also, fighting for the food instead of letting onself be scared off by bigger predators may suddenly be worht it if food becomes something rare! And this may in turn favor those animals how simply stick together longer after birth - packs may be an advantage!


As you see, a small change in the DNA may result in a big change in appearance (color), or a small one (leg length)! In each case, the gene is EXPRESSED differently on the outside.

Also, one small change in the environment may result in a SERIES of changes in selective pressure!

And suddenly, the many rather harmless (or even harmfull!) mutations running around all the time (background mutaions I call them) will 'suddenly' - over a few generations - lead to a rather massive shift in appearance!

 

[carlosMM]

Phydeaux - please tell me if you follow so far. I have compressed a few hours of school biology into two posts - I know it will be hard to follow!

 

[Mrogreturns]

@CarlosMM- (or anyone else hwo happens to know)- some time ago I read an estimate of the probability of the observed concordance between the fossil record and genetic evidence occuring by chance- could you possibly direct me to any studies that have looked at that. I have only seen secondary reports.

Cheers!

 

[carlosMM]

@CarlosMM- (or anyone else hwo happens to know)- some time ago I read an estimate of the probability of the observed concordance between the fossil record and genetic evidence occuring by chance- could you possibly direct me to any studies that have looked at that. I have only seen secondary reports.

Cheers!

I have started to read several - but always put them down after Material&Methods. The few I have seen ALL had significant errors in their basic assumptions - i.e. one calculated ONLY on the basis of single-base muations, thus throwing out the vast majority of genome changes, andother gave no source whatsoever for its assumed mnutation rates, the third relied on the rather arbitrary genus definitions.

So, sorry, I cannot help you - all I have ever seen was crap!

 

[Mrogreturns]

Ok- thanks anyway CarlosMM- from what you said, it seems to me that they may be underestimates- do you think that is valid, or is it simply too messy to say?

 

[carlosMM]

Ok- thanks anyway CarlosMM- from what you said, it seems to me that they may be underestimates- do you think that is valid, or is it simply too messy to say?

honestly - too messy! We can't even be sure whether there wasn't a much freer, recent bacteria style exchange of genes in early eucaryota. And we lack so much data on so much of history - remember, we get only tiny little windows!

I kow of only two terrestrail ecosystems that are preserved to a degree of completens that allows to make specific assuptions about species number: Messel and Yixian Formation Liaoning. Also, mutation rates are extremely hard to estimate when you consider the full range of screwups with starter codons and terminators, and post-transcription 'cutting' and mutile allels cancelling each other out or lethal factors etc.....

It is just not feasible to give any proper rate for chance here, as we lack the data on which said chance is supposed to happen!

 

[Mrogreturns]

@CarlosMM- thamnks for your patience, and I hope I can impose on you a bit further. Its possible that I phrased the question poorly (I am way out of my field here!). So, if I may, I'll try asking again- it may or may not make any difference. What I meant was that if you consider the fossil record and interpret it in an evolutionary sense then it allows you to make inferences about the degree of relatedness between exisiting animals. These inferences can then be checked by examining the genetic relationships amoung exisitng animals. I underdtand that when this is done there is a high degree of aggreement between the fossil and genetic evidence. It is the probablity of that degree of concordance that I am interested in.

Cheers!

 

[Perfection]

Carlos, I think he's just refering to studies where they find the chances that corresponce between genetic differences and fossil-based cladistics are by chance, not ones one timing of divergence based on genetic differences, more of just order of divergence.

edit: Mrog beat me to it and said it better.