Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Smidlee]

And watch them be passed down to the next generation.



Now we move to mice.

How do you explain the fact that we find a high percentage of black mice on black lava rocks, and almost no mice on the light brown desert substrate that spans the areas between black lava rock deposits in the SW deserts?

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5268.full

Phenotype plasticity.

 

[pat34lee]

I'm sorry, those of you who say macro evolution is mathematically impossible are simply wrong. Its perfectly possible mathematically. In fact you can't even define the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution.

Microevolution is just another name for adaptation, variation within a kind. You see this everywhere, such as breeds of dogs, types of cattle or sheep. No matter how long you breed them, you will get dogs, cattle and sheep. When you get something else, that would be macroevolution; aka when pigs fly.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would post examples, but if you honestly wanted the truth, you could do it yourself.

We honestly don't know how you could write a grant based on science that was falsified more than 150 years ago. Perhaps you could help us out?

 

[Loudmouth]

Phenotype plasticity.

"Rock pocket mice are generally light-colored and live on light-colored rocks. However, populations of dark (melanic) mice are found on dark lava, and this concealing coloration provides protection from avian and mammalian predators. We conducted association studies by using markers in candidate pigmentation genes and discovered four mutations in the melanocortin-1-receptor gene, Mc1r, that seem to be responsible for adaptive melanism in one population of lava-dwelling pocket mice."
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5268.full

The allele is not found in the light colored mice. The allele is only found in the dark mice found on the dark rocks. How do you explain that?

 

[pat34lee]

What about theologians? Is there any pressure on them to not go against certain theology?

Of course. Some 'ministries' are millionaire clubs. Many theological seminaries today churn out atheists who don't believe the bible that they teach, but they will take money for teaching their theology.

 

[Loudmouth]

Microevolution is just another name for adaptation, variation within a kind. You see this everywhere, such as breeds of dogs, types of cattle or sheep. No matter how long you breed them, you will get dogs, cattle and sheep. When you get something else, that would be macroevolution; aka when pigs fly.

Our common ancestor with chimps was a primate. We are still primates. Does that make it microevolution just because we can use the same name?

 

[pat34lee]

We honestly don't know how you could write a grant based on science that was falsified more than 150 years ago. Perhaps you could help us out?

Could you be more vague? And who is 'we'? Got a mouse in your pocket?

 

[Smidlee]

Microevolution is just another name for adaptation, variation within a kind. You see this everywhere, such as breeds of dogs, types of cattle or sheep. No matter how long you breed them, you will get dogs, cattle and sheep. When you get something else, that would be macroevolution; aka when pigs fly.

The difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is dGRN that has a main role of the body plan need to be completely re-engineered. dGRN only allows the embryo to develop one way.

 

[Loudmouth]

Could you be more vague?

How would you base a grant on creationism? What experiments would you do to test the idea that anything was created by a deity?

 

[pat34lee]

Our common ancestor with chimps was a primate. We are still primates. Does that make it microevolution just because we can use the same name?

How do you prove that primates and man (any two animals of different kinds for that matter) ever had a common ancestor? There is more evidence for common design than common ancestry.

 

[Loudmouth]

The difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is dGRN that has a main role of the body plan need to be completely re-engineered.

Chimps and humans have the same body plan. We only differ by a few percent at the DNA level. Why would that take a complete re-engineering?

 

[pat34lee]

How would you base a grant on creationism? What experiments would you do to test the idea that anything was created by a deity?

How would you test that it created itself from nothing? Same concept.

 

[Smidlee]

"Rock pocket mice are generally light-colored and live on light-colored rocks. However, populations of dark (melanic) mice are found on dark lava, and this concealing coloration provides protection from avian and mammalian predators. We conducted association studies by using markers in candidate pigmentation genes and discovered four mutations in the melanocortin-1-receptor gene, Mc1r, that seem to be responsible for adaptive melanism in one population of lava-dwelling pocket mice."
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5268.full

The allele is not found in the light colored mice. The allele is only found in the dark mice found on the dark rocks. How do you explain that?

Phenotype plasticity

 

[pat34lee]

Chimps and humans have the same body plan. We only differ by a few percent at the DNA level. Why would that take a complete re-engineering?

You need to recheck that. A few percent difference is only part of the coding DNA.

 

[Loudmouth]

How do you prove that primates and man (any two animals of different kinds for that matter) ever had a common ancestor?

First, by determining if life falls into a nested hierarchy since we observe that common design does not produce a nested hierarchy. For example, cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Computers don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Buildings don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Only life falls into a nested hierarchy, exactly the pattern that evolution and common ancestry would produce.

There is more evidence for common design than common ancestry.

Common design doesn't explain the nested hierarchy.

"Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

Life falls into an objective nested hierarchy. Designed things don't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Phenotype plasticity

I already showed you the mutations responsible for the change in coat color.

 

[Smidlee]

Chimps and humans have the same body plan. We only differ by a few percent at the DNA level. Why would that take a complete re-engineering?

Chimps and humans don't have the same dGRN or you could simply put human DNA in a chimp egg and produce a scientist. dGRN is what has to be totally rewired. so DNA-R-US doesn't seem to be true. A chimp could have the exact same DNA as human and still not be a scientist.

 

[Smidlee]

I already showed you the mutations responsible for the change in coat color.

Watch the video example of plasticity as there were a lot more changes than just color. You still thinking the central dogma is true.

 

[bhsmte]

I would post examples, but if you honestly wanted the truth, you could do it yourself.

Of course you won't post examples.

 

[Loudmouth]

You need to recheck that. A few percent difference is only part of the coding DNA.

Of the 3% of the genome that is coding DNA, we are more than 99% identical. In the other 97% we are more than 96% identical, if you include indels. If you look at just substitutions, we are about 98% identical in the non-coding portion of the genome.