Mutation gives mouse poison resistance

[CabVet]

The whole idea of descent with modification is pretty much based on gain of function mutations cropping up, being selected and passed on.

Again you demonstrate that you know nothing about evolution. Descent of modification has nothing to do with gain of function. The only thing required by evolution is change (i.e. modification).

 

[EternalDragon]

Sorry, but all of the scientific evidence in the world says that is not what happened.

You are confusing scientists conclusions with actual evidence again.

Science has no evidence contradicting Genesis.

 

[lasthero]

Science has no evidence contradicting Genesis.

It has plenty. You don't like it, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

 

[AV1611VET]

It has plenty. You don't like it, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

Science can take a hike.

 

[Naraoia]

Oh, I saw a talk about this recently. Really cool stuff.

At any rate, a true "gain of function" mutation is what evolution requires.

I don't think you understand what "gain of function" means...

That is an example of the kind of evolution that any Christian would agree with. It is not an example to help your idea of evolution.

Nice try equivocating Christians with creationists.

Complex changes meaning re-routing blood vessels, ligaments, tendons...

No, those changes actually aren't as complex as you think. Blood vessels, muscles, nerves etc. are to a large degree guided by their environment. Change the shape of a limb bone, and the musculature and innervation will change with it, because muscles organise themselves around bones and peripheral nerves grow wherever there is tissue to be innervated.

bypassing whole embryo body plans, etc.

What do you mean by this?

God created birds and bats on day five, fully formed and able to fly.

When did God create microraptorines or Archaeopteryx?

It's debatable because the mouse LOSES the ability to sense pain. In case there's a fire for example, loss of a pain reflex is bad.

It doesn't lose the ability to sense pain. The mutation only changes the way Na+ channels react to a specific substance. I think you'll agree that most pain stimuli aren't scorpion venom.

So I'm not misunderstood, species adapt and there are beneficial mutations. It's just as Eternal Dragon pointed out, variation within a species and variation to a species are two different things.

One. Speciation is an observed and well-documented phenomenon. Two. Speciation does not equal large change. See any number of species you can only tell apart by looking at their genitals under the microscope or sequencing their DNA.

Perhaps "species" is not what you mean.

The whole idea of descent with modification is pretty much based on gain of function mutations cropping up, being selected and passed on.

Now I really don't think you understand what a gain of function mutation is. It does not mean "beneficial" or "increasing complexity".

Without gaining the function of nerve cells, osteoblasts, immune systems, eyes, ears, etc, all life would still basically be bacteria if all that was required was change. Reducing the issue to simply requiring "change", grossly oversimplifies what actually constitutes function and regulation within the cell.

"All evolution requires is change" =/= "no new traits ever have to appear".

 

[CabVet]

You are confusing scientists conclusions with actual evidence again.

Science has no evidence contradicting Genesis.

You seem to have no idea what evidence there is out there (or more likely are purposely ignoring it).

 

[EternalDragon]

You seem to have no idea what evidence there is out there (or more likely are purposely ignoring it).

You mean what "conclusions" are out there. I am well aware of the available evidence.

 

[CabVet]

You mean what "conclusions" are out there. I am well aware of the available evidence.

No, you are not. For example, the order in which animals and plants appear in the fossil record is evidence, not a conclusion, and that evidence completely refutes the order in Genesis. There is plenty of evidence that the earth was created after the sun, contrarily to what Genesis says. I could go on and on, but I am sure you are not interested.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, you are not. For example, the order in which animals and plants appear in the fossil record is evidence, not a conclusion, and that evidence completely refutes the order in Genesis. There is plenty of evidence that the earth was created after the sun, contrarily to what Genesis says. I could go on and on, but I am sure you are not interested.

Only if you believe those fossils were all laid down and preserved over millions of years. Lose your presuppositions and you will not be able to tell me how they got there. Or what came first, the earth or the sun. Those are hypothesis. Not evidence.

I would bet you think the sun came first because there would have been no gravitational force to pull and hold the particles that formed the earth. That would be due to your presupposition that the sun and earth had a natural cause and was not created by an intelligent designer. You automatically rule out and ridicule any other possibility.

 

[EternalDragon]

When did God create microraptorines or Archaeopteryx?

There are no specific species listed in the creation account and, as we all well know, species can produce variety. So no one could give an direct answer to that.

 

[Split Rock]

The example is a mutation of a protein. Not a series of mutations resulting in say wings on a rat. Which would take a lot more complex changes to happen and is the kind of evolution I assume you believe in.

Complex changes meaning re-routing blood vessels, ligaments, tendons, bypassing whole embryo body plans, etc.

This is a fantasy evolution strawman. No one believes that evolution occurs by bypassing whole embryo body plans.

No, it has not happened. You believe it happened.

God created birds and bats on day five, fully formed and able to fly.

Your assertion. Strange that the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs did not require any "re-routing blood vessels, ligaments, tendons, bypassing whole embryo body plans," though.

 

[dad]

This one goes for those who don't "believe" in beneficial mutations, a mutation gives grasshopper mice resistance to scorpion venom, allowing them to eat scorpions.

Mouse eats scorpions

But maybe this is just another loss, right? The mutation made them lose the ability to die from poisoning?

God's creation is amazing! Bears have noses that are resistant to bee stings. We should be thankful that evolution is a created trait, even if it does work slow in this present age.

 

[Vaccine]

Again you demonstrate that you know nothing about evolution. Descent of modification has nothing to do with gain of function. The only thing required by evolution is change (i.e. modification).

I don't doubt the theory of evolution, what I reject is that it can explain the origin of the species. But since you say I "know nothing about evolution", perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what this theory of "descent of modification" is all about?

 

[Vaccine]

I don't think you understand what "gain of function" means...

Well then you should be able to classify this mutation, is it a gain of function mutation or no?

It doesn't lose the ability to sense pain. The mutation only changes the way Na+ channels react to a specific substance. I think you'll agree that most pain stimuli aren't scorpion venom.

Sure there are other stimuli. The article was vague on that point, but lets take a closer look. They did not say the reaction to the venom was prevented or there were any changes to Nav 1.7 channels. That and they also mentioned a "new kind" of painkiller would suggests the initial signal from the Na+ channels reacting to the venom was unaltered. They said the signal was prevented from traveling any further, suggesting the signal along the axon was what the mutation altered. That would dull any pain, not just venom. This is just a guess, but I would imagine that mutation could cause these mice freeze to death before they even knew it was cold.

One. Speciation is an observed and well-documented phenomenon. Two. Speciation does not equal large change. See any number of species you can only tell apart by looking at their genitals under the microscope or sequencing their DNA.

Perhaps "species" is not what you mean.

You missed the point. I did not say speciation does not happen. Species are reproductively isolated, so that any speciation occurs as a result of mating tells us they are the same species. What we do not see in the fossil record or otherwise is speciation by Darwinian evolution.

Now I really don't think you understand what a gain of function mutation is. It does not mean "beneficial" or "increasing complexity".

"All evolution requires is change" =/= "no new traits ever have to appear".

If all people meant by evolution was "change over time", there would be no controversy or debate. Nobody denies species change. That people say those small changes over time turned a chimp into a human is why there's a debate.

 

[OllieFranz]

No one believes that a chimp turned into a human. And the only people claiming that the TOE says they did are the people trying to make the TOE look ridiculous. In logic, that tactic is called the Strawman Fallacy. In Economics and politics it is known as Bait and Switch. And it is considered to be dishonest and heinous in any situation.

 

[AV1611VET]

No one believes that a chimp turned into a human.

But caterpillars can turn into butterflies and tadpoles can turn into frogs?

 

[Split Rock]

But caterpillars can turn into butterflies and tadpoles can turn into frogs?

That's not evolution... now is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not evolution... now is it?

... no.

 

[EternalDragon]

No one believes that a chimp turned into a human. And the only people claiming that the TOE says they did are the people trying to make the TOE look ridiculous. In logic, that tactic is called the Strawman Fallacy. In Economics and politics it is known as Bait and Switch. And it is considered to be dishonest and heinous in any situation.

So to be precise, a line of some sort of primate (ape/monkey) produced humans, apes and chimps. In other words they branched off or evolved from this one ancestor that was an ape like creature.

Basically an ape like primate turned into a human. So how is that any less ridiculous?

I found this little gem on the wiki page.

"There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages."

 

[lasthero]

You should've looked a few paragraphs above that.

The evidence on which scientific accounts of human evolution is based comes from many fields of natural science. The main sources of knowledge about the evolutionary process has traditionally been the fossil record, but since the development of genetics beginning in the 1970 s DNA analyses has come to occupy a place of comparable importance. The studies of ontogeny, phylogeny and especially evolutionary developmental biology of both vertebrates and invertebrates offer considerable insight into the evolution of all life, including how humans evolved. The specific study of the origin and life of humans is anthropology, particularly paleoanthropology which focuses on the study of human prehistory.[61]

Or a little bit below that.

Genetic evidence has also been employed to resolve the question of whether there was any gene flow between early modern humans and Neanderthals, and to enhance our understanding of the early human migration patterns and splitting dates. By comparing the parts of the genome that are not under natural selection and which therefore accumulate mutations at a fairly steady rate, it is possible to reconstruct a genetic tree incorporating the entire human species since the last shared ancestor.

Or, heck, you could have just looked one paragraph up.

Each time a certain mutation (Single nucleotide polymorphism) appears in an individual and is passed on to his or her descendants a haplogroup is formed including all of the descendants of the individual who will also carry that mutation. By comparing mitochondrial DNA which is inherited only from the mother, geneticists have concluded that the last female common ancestor whose genetic marker is found in all modern humans, the so-called mitochondrial Eve, must have lived around 200,000 years ago.