Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[PromoterGene]

Yea there are random mutations, but they are rarely, if ever, beneficial.....and not only that, but you guys have decided on the nucleotide as your unit of change....and what I am saying is that you have no proof of small nucleotides building up over vast periods time and passed down through generations to create animals and/or their traits. No proof what-so-ever. Thus, you are living on blind faith.

Well, except that speciation has already been observed both in the lab as well as the field. I'm sure a pubmed search, google search, or a search using a data base from your local university could pull up the necessary articles relating to this. If I can do it, surely you can. If you're going to be lazy, then what are you doing debating science?

No, I'm talking about controlled experiments. Science is afraid of doing controlled experiments on animals by taking them to separate locations in the world to see the difference different temperatures, locations might make in their phenotypes. Evolutionists say that microevolution and macroevolution use the same mechanism, but if the mechanims for microevolution is kicked out from under them by simple plasticity, then you're left in a boat without paddle. That's why I say they're afraid.

If that's what you're getting at, then you don't need to move animals around the world to test such variables. Creating differences in environment can be done in a lab at any location. I don't know how simple platicity can make drastic changes in phenotype to give the appearance of evolution. I'm white, if I moved to the equator, I may become tan, but I will never become black. In fact, because I'm naturally light skinned, I'll probably get skin cancer or die of heat exhaustion before I even achieve a dark tan. If you give me an unlimited membership to a gym I routinely go, I will never achieve the body that Arnold Schwarzenegger once had.

Maybe I'm just not understand what you're trying to get at, but then again, perhaps you're merely grasping at straws and make things as vague as possible so you still have enough "arguments" to bore us into losing. I've already determined that you had no interest in actually learning in this discussion. You've made your conclusion before even brushing yourself up on the data. From what I've understand of creationists, they believe that evolutionary biologists do nothing but discuss all day what they think happened and present them as facts. Maybe that's why none of you actually do any research, because somehow you've got yourselves convinced that the only thing done in this field is mere talking.

If you have links to such experiments I would love to see them. Prove me wrong.

I have yet to post enough to have that ability, apparently. Maybe it'd do you some good to actually do some of the research yourself. One of the benefits of doing personal research is that not only you learn, but you also find side information that you would've otherwise have seen if it was just given to you.

I can't help but believe that creationists are lazy and tend to believe that the entire concept of evolution is merely to give people an excuse to be godless. The theory of evolution was by no means created to destroy Christianity. I wouldn't be surprised if many fundamentalist Christians suffered from paranoia. They show many signs of such an illness, creating elaborate stories about a world wide conspiracy of God hating, evolution believing, sexually deviant people set out to destroy their religion.

Once people like you realize that the theory of evolution is by no means an attack on your faith, that many people who accept the theory believe in the same God as you, and that those participating in scientific inquiry are not practicing in religiously, perhaps you'll be a little more open and reasonable. I honestly don't know what you're doing here if you have no interest in learning.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Here is an actual link as to why you were banned.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=156672&page=14

A bit different than your version.

Norm

for some reason, the links to iidb aren't working, at least for me, but here is the text and another attempt at a link : http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=156672&page=14
add showthread.php?
after vbb/ and maybe they will work. it is being deleted for some reason.

supersport for failing to agree to the conditions of an Official Administrator Notice demanding that he curb his overly disruptive behaviour.

 

[Gracchus]

I don't think you can link to IIDB from Christian forums. I wonder why.

Cut and past the link to a new copy of your browser.

 

[supersport]

for some reason, the links to iidb aren't working, at least for me, but here is the text and another attempt at a link : http://www.iidb.org/vbb/t156672&page=14
add showthread.php?
after vbb/ and maybe they will work. it is being deleted for some reason.

I don't know what you're looking at but I cut-and-paste the exact statement that pops up when I try to log in.

The only excuse that they gave on my email was that I was being "disruptive"......do you think I'm being disruptive here?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

If supersport isn't evidence for random mutation, nothing is.

 

[vipertaja]

You know the theory of evolution is on the brink of utter collapse when an uneducated redneck hick from Texas like me can figure it out in just few months.

If "an uneducated redneck hick from Texas like you" can
figure out how to "disprove" an old scientific unrefuted topic
like evolution, then it's guaranteed that many others have
thought of it and it's likely there's a reason as to why the
"refutation" hasn't worked so far.

 

[supersport]

Well, except that speciation has already been observed both in the lab as well as the field. I'm sure a pubmed search, google search, or a search using a data base from your local university could pull up the necessary articles relating to this. If I can do it, surely you can. If you're going to be lazy, then what are you doing debating science?.

Those lab experiments with bacteria are certainly not examples of RANDOM mutations since the mutations only happen in the presence of another organism...according to your dogma, mutations are to happen independent of the environment and not to the direct benefit of the organism. The bacteria examples are both. So lets keep this to animals.

If that's what you're getting at, then you don't need to move animals around the world to test such variables. Creating differences in environment can be done in a lab at any location. I don't know how simple platicity can make drastic changes in phenotype to give the appearance of evolution. I'm white, if I moved to the equator, I may become tan, but I will never become black. In fact, because I'm naturally light skinned, I'll probably get skin cancer or die of heat exhaustion before I even achieve a dark tan. If you give me an unlimited membership to a gym I routinely go, I will never achieve the body that Arnold Schwarzenegger once had.

Maybe I'm just not understand what you're trying to get at, but then again, perhaps you're merely grasping at straws and make things as vague as possible so you still have enough "arguments" to bore us into losing. I've already determined that you had no interest in actually learning in this discussion. You've made your conclusion before even brushing yourself up on the data. From what I've understand of creationists, they believe that evolutionary biologists do nothing but discuss all day what they think happened and present them as facts. Maybe that's why none of you actually do any research, because somehow you've got yourselves convinced that the only thing done in this field is mere talking.

.

I've already given examples where numerous mammals can change fur color quickly.....deer, rabbits, foxes, weasels, etc. In fact, if you name an mammal I can probably give you a link that shows how it can change fur/skin color depending on environment.

I can also show you how fish and lizards can grow or shrink depending on environment. They can also turn colors quickly depending on environment.

http://www.kidcyber.com.au/topics/marineiguana.htm

I can also show you how insects such as butterflys can emerge with distinct wing patterns depending on the season and the predators that might be around.

I can also show you how tadpoles develop into two distinct creatures depending on their diet.....which can shape and mold their heads/jaw structure. Worms, crickets, spiders, roaches, beetles, moths, butterflys -- they're all the same.

The same can be said about about mice and horses. Hard seeds or abrasive grass can shape and mold the animal's phenotype....heads, teeth, jaws, mouths, bodys can all be molded to fit the diet one consumes.

http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/oriole/FeathersSoFine.html (individual birds change color)

Birds usually make their own pigments, but sometimes they get them from their food. So a change in diet can sometimes change a bird's color. Some orioles look more red or yellow than normal, and tanagers may look orange, when their diets have more or less of some fruits. Waxwings usually have a bright yellow band at the tip of their tails, but diet can turn this orange. If flamingoes don't eat enough shrimp, they can't produce the pigment that makes their feathers so pink and they become whit


The fact is, I generally have to go to PET forums or non-evolutionary sites to find this stuff out. The fact is, there is no evolutionary scientific website I can go to to learn this stuff. The fact is, your scientists are AFRAID of real science. The fact is, over time (generations) animals can grow bigger or smaller depending on the weather....(see bergmann's rule and Allen's rule). And these processes, I submit, happen through the INDIVIDUAL -- as a few generations pass -- , not the population over thousands/millions of years.

http://www.mpks.org/faq/ans128.shtml

If you look up any animal in God's creation, you'll find that they have similar abilities. Animals often change colors and/or individual characteristics depending on environment, diet, temperature, predators, etc. Everything is individually adaptive -- just like I said.

It happens all over, man. And it happens individually, not through population -- which puts the death stake into your silly unseen, unproven unbelievable theory. I've got my proof, where's yours?

 

[Opethian]

Those lab experiments with bacteria are certainly not examples of RANDOM mutations since the mutations only happen in the presence of another organism

All mutations are random mutations. Even a point mutation that was deliberately triggered by a human scientist could be viewed as a random mutation since the scientist is part of the organisms environment. And even then, the lab experiments he was talking about did not have any specific manipulation, maybe just some substances to speed up mutation rates. Please learn what evolution is about and try to understand it before you attempt to refute it.

...according to your dogma, mutations are to happen independent of the environment and not to the direct benefit of the organism.

Mutations do not happen independant of the environment. Without any environmental influence mutations wouldn't occur, because a mutation needs to have a cause, like light, certain chemicals etc... That is the whole basis of a mutation, but you do not even seem to understand what a mutation is, so why do you even dare argue about this? What is meant by random is that the mutation could have any, thus a random, effect on the organism. The environment the organism lives in will determine whether the mutated organism will have a higher or lower chance of surival and reproduction, and thus will determine whether the population of the mutant will be able to persist or not, and how this population will do in the future (if it is a negative mutation then there is a high chance that the first mutant dies immediately and thus a real population will be never established). This is natural selection.

The bacteria examples are both. So lets keep this to animals.

The bacteria examples are fine, but you fail to understand that.

I've already given examples where numerous mammals can change fur color quickly.....deer, rabbits, foxes, weasels, etc. In fact, if you name an mammal I can probably give you a link that shows how it can change fur/skin color depending on environment.

I can also show you how fish and lizards can grow or shrink depending on environment. They can also turn colors quickly depending on environment.

http://www.kidcyber.com.au/topics/marineiguana.htm

I can also show you how insects such as butterflys can emerge with distinct wing patterns depending on the season and the predators that might be around.

I can also show you how tadpoles develop into two distinct creatures depending on their diet.....which can shape and mold their heads/jaw structure. Worms, crickets, spiders, roaches, beetles, moths, butterflys -- they're all the same.

The same can be said about about mice and horses. Hard seeds or abrasive grass can shape and mold the animal's phenotype....heads, teeth, jaws, mouths, bodys can all be molded to fit the diet one consumes.

http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/ori...ersSoFine.html (individual birds change color)

Birds usually make their own pigments, but sometimes they get them from their food. So a change in diet can sometimes change a bird's color. Some orioles look more red or yellow than normal, and tanagers may look orange, when their diets have more or less of some fruits. Waxwings usually have a bright yellow band at the tip of their tails, but diet can turn this orange. If flamingoes don't eat enough shrimp, they can't produce the pigment that makes their feathers so pink and they become whit

So? No scientist in their right mind would claim that these changes are evolution in action. I can alter my phenotype by using a marker on my face, are you going to say that scientists view this as evolution too? Please don't make a fool out of yourself by thinking this is relevant to the discussion, or even just the evolution topic.

The fact is, I generally have to go to PET forums or non-evolutionary sites to find this stuff out. The fact is, there is no evolutionary scientific website I can go to to learn this stuff.

Well, the fact that you won't find any of this stuff on evolutionary websites, is probably because it has nothing at all to do with evolution . The reason why you will find things like this on creation "science" websites is because they use it to deceive people who have no good understanding of science, like you. And remarkably, it works! It's a shame really. If you don't even understand what evolution is, why are you trying to debate about it?

The fact is, your scientists are AFRAID of real science. The fact is, over time (generations) animals can grow bigger or smaller depending on the weather....(see bergmann's rule and Allen's rule). And these processes, I submit, happen through the INDIVIDUAL -- as a few generations pass -- , not the population over thousands/millions of years.

Nobody is arguing that organisms' phenotypes can change over time by non-evolutionary means, but it seems that you have been brainwashed by creation science websites that this is somehow relevant to the evolution discussion, and that scientists pretend that these are evolutionary changes. You have been fooled by a strawman.

It happens all over, man. And it happens individually, not through population -- which puts the death stake into your silly unseen, unproven unbelievable theory. I've got my proof, where's yours?

You have done nothing at all, except maybe made a fool out of yourself by arguing that changes of phenotype in some organisms somehow poses a problem for the evolution theory.

 

[supersport]

All mutations are random mutations. Even a point mutation that was deliberately triggered by a human scientist could be viewed as a random mutation since the scientist is part of the organisms environment. And even then, the lab experiments he was talking about did not have any specific manipulation, maybe just some substances to speed up mutation rates. Please learn what evolution is about and try to understand it before you attempt to refute it.



Mutations do not happen independant of the environment. Without any environmental influence mutations wouldn't occur, because a mutation needs to have a cause, like light, certain chemicals etc... That is the whole basis of a mutation, but you do not even seem to understand what a mutation is, so why do you even dare argue about this? What is meant by random is that the mutation could have any, thus a random, effect on the organism. The environment the organism lives in will determine whether the mutated organism will have a higher or lower chance of surival and reproduction, and thus will determine whether the population of the mutant will be able to persist or not, and how this population will do in the future (if it is a negative mutation then there is a high chance that the first mutant dies immediately and thus a real population will be never established). This is natural selection.



The bacteria examples are fine, but you fail to understand that.



So? No scientist in their right mind would claim that these changes are evolution in action. I can alter my phenotype by using a marker on my face, are you going to say that scientists view this as evolution too? Please don't make a fool out of yourself by thinking this is relevant to the discussion, or even just the evolution topic.




Well, the fact that you won't find any of this stuff on evolutionary websites, is probably because it has nothing at all to do with evolution . The reason why you will find things like this on creation "science" websites is because they use it to deceive people who have no good understanding of science, like you. And remarkably, it works! It's a shame really. If you don't even understand what evolution is, why are you trying to debate about it?



Nobody is arguing that organisms' phenotypes can change over time by non-evolutionary means, but it seems that you have been brainwashed by creation science websites that this is somehow relevant to the evolution discussion, and that scientists pretend that these are evolutionary changes. You have been fooled by a strawman.



You have done nothing at all, except maybe made a fool out of yourself by arguing that changes of phenotype in some organisms somehow poses a problem for the evolution theory.

Well I'm not going to spend alot of time with you because you are obviously are uninformed and/or blinded by your own dogma. Do you consider it a random act if you step off a cliff and fall down the ground? Do you consider it a random act if you catch a cold and your immune system fights it off? If not, then why do you consider it a random act when a mutation allows bacteria to metabolize a nutrient that it could not use before? What the heck is random about that...? Not only that but the fact is, no new information is getting into the genome. In fact, these mutations are actually LOSING information -- which means you cannot use this as an example of "evolution" because you guys require a GAIN of information. Nice try.

The rest of your post is just hand-waving. The fact is, if every individual animal on this earth is quickly adaptive -- or adaptive over just a few generations -- it would completely undercut the need for populations to wait thousands of years to evolve via random muations and natural selection. In fact, it would mean that your whole mechanism for change is FLAWED right out of the gate. The fact is, this puts your theory in an intellectual headlock. S

 

[JGG]

The rest of your post is just hand-waving. The fact is, if every individual animal on this earth is quickly adaptive -- or adaptive over just a few generations -- it would completely undercut the need for populations to wait thousands of years to evolve via random muations and natural selection. In fact, it would mean that your whole mechanism for change is FLAWED right out of the gate. The fact is, this puts your theory in an intellectual headlock. S

I'm sorry, what? I don't think you really understand evolution as well as you think you do.

When are you actually going to refute evolution? After reading a few posts, and your links I've found that at best, you've suggested that the underlying mechanism of evolution is a little more complex than scientists thought a while ago...which is not really a surprise, science is always getting more complex.

 

[MewtwoX]

I see some people are still mistaking general change in an organism as Evolution, however...

That's not the definition of Evolution.

Remember this:

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

​

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.​

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

​

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Also, when discussing phenotypic plasticity, it would be useful to note that most instances of this phenomenon do not lead to dramatic changes in the organism (IE. at most Colour changes, etc.)

 

[MewtwoX]

Well I'm not going to spend alot of time with you because you are obviously are uninformed and/or blinded by your own dogma. Do you consider it a random act if you step off a cliff and fall down the ground? Do you consider it a random act if you catch a cold and your immune system fights it off? If not, then why do you consider it a random act when a mutation allows bacteria to metabolize a nutrient that it could not use before?

False analogy. The fact that one mutation of many in the population that is positive occurs doesn't mean that its occurance wasn't random.

Again, recall that the population has variation within it consistently and when one of the variants is useful it will become fixed within the population.

Not only that but the fact is, no new information is getting into the genome. In fact, these mutations are actually LOSING information -- which means you cannot use this as an example of "evolution" because you guys require a GAIN of information. Nice try.

Where in Evolution is a gain of information required? Would you please define "information"? The claim of "information" being lost or needing to be gained is one of creationist origins and comes from an incorrect application of Information theory onto DNA.

The rest of your post is just hand-waving. The fact is, if every individual animal on this earth is quickly adaptive -- or adaptive over just a few generations -- it would completely undercut the need for populations to wait thousands of years to evolve via random muations and natural selection.

In this phrasing, you are suggesting the development of new species and genus is indicative of Evolution, however these are higher category versions of evolution. Mere fixation events of alleles do not require thousands of years to occur, but reproductive isolation followed by many successive allele introductions and fixation events to result in reproductively isolated species will take quite a while...

In fact, it would mean that your whole mechanism for change is FLAWED right out of the gate. The fact is, this puts your theory in an intellectual headlock.

Not really, you misunderstood the mechanism of Evolution.

 

[supersport]

I see some people are still mistaking general change in an organism as Evolution, however...

That's not the definition of Evolution.

Remember this:



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Also, when discussing phenotypic plasticity, it would be useful to note that most instances of this phenomenon do not lead to dramatic changes in the organism (IE. at most Colour changes, etc.)

Look....I have shown you how animals can grow and shrink and change physical structures due to plasticity. Go back and look at the links if you don't believe me. But even so, I'm talking about the MECHANISM of change...and you simply do not have a biological mechanism to explain plasticity. Instead, you guys say that to change traits. an accidental MUTATION has to happen and then spread throughout the POPULATION -- which I say is ridiculous...and I've proven that this is not necessary.

I've even given you links that prove that the scientific community is scurring about to explain this phenomenon...and how some have turned their back on Toe.

The truth is, animal have to have intelligence in the genome to decipher external conditions to be able to do this. It's all started with the release of hormones. S

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Well I'm not going to spend alot of time with you because you are obviously are uninformed and/or blinded by your own dogma.

Said the man who introduced himself as an "uneducated redneck hick from Texas".

Do you consider it a random act if you step off a cliff and fall down the ground? Do you consider it a random act if you catch a cold and your immune system fights it off? If not, then why do you consider it a random act when a mutation allows bacteria to metabolize a nutrient that it could not use before? What the heck is random about that...?

You seem to get the progression the wrong way round. Mutations occur all the time, it's just that most of them have no discernible effect on the organism. If a beneficial effect -like the ability to metabolize a hitherto useless nutrient - appears, the mutation that caused it is still random.

Not only that but the fact is, no new information is getting into the genome. In fact, these mutations are actually LOSING information -- which means you cannot use this as an example of "evolution" because you guys require a GAIN of information. Nice try.

Oy veh, you said it. Come back when you have decided whether ATGC or GCTA yields more information.

 

[supersport]

http://www2.ups.edu/biology/Peter/articles/Plasticity1992.pdf

It's more than just color....

plasticity of fish body shape.....depending on diet....leading to a wide variety of cichlid fish

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~kiisa/Horned%20Lizard.html

Phrynosoma that are dietary generalists tend to have a more robust skull, jaws and teeth that are thought to allow the animal to process a wider range of prey items, whereas in specialists these elements are reduced. It is likely that other characters of the feeding system are also functionally important and correlated with diet. For example, from Montanuccis’ findings we predict that dietary generalists are more likely to have larger jaw adducting muscles that allow the animal to immobilize and process larger prey items.

 

[JGG]

http://www2.ups.edu/biology/Peter/articles/Plasticity1992.pdf

It's more than just color....

plasticity of fish body shape.....depending on diet....leading to a wide variety of cichlid fish

One of my favorite songs...He's not heavy, he's just high in plasticity...

 

[Opethian]

Do you consider it a random act if you step off a cliff and fall down the ground? Do you consider it a random act if you catch a cold and your immune system fights it off?

Poor analogy. Like I have said before, you do not understand the basics of evolution, and the term random mutations is one of the things you seem to be struggling with.

If not, then why do you consider it a random act when a mutation allows bacteria to metabolize a nutrient that it could not use before? What the heck is random about that...?

The mutation is random, because before it occurred, no one would have a clue what it would affect. Random means: unknown effect. It could be bad, it could be neutral, it could be beneficial. But whether it is bad, neutral, or beneficial, is determined by the environment the mutant will live in after it mutates. The environment does not determine which mutations will occurs, it will determine which mutants will survive and reproduce. Therefore, the mutation is random. In the lab experiment, which occurred on many many bacteria, there would be many many mutations, which would all be random, but once a certain mutation would occur that would allow that specific mutant bacteria to metabolize a new nutrient, and the whole bacteria population (with all kinds of mutants) would be plated out on an agar containing only that nutrient, only that specific mutant would survive there and could be further researched. The agar with the nutrient would be the selecting environmental factor.

Not only that but the fact is, no new information is getting into the genome. In fact, these mutations are actually LOSING information -- which means you cannot use this as an example of "evolution" because you guys require a GAIN of information. Nice try.

Please support your statement that no new information is getting into the genome in these lab experiments? Please show me somewhere where it says that in order for evolution to occur, "information" must be "gained". But please, first define information and the gaining thereof in regard to evolutionary theory? Please explain how "mutations can lose information" or reform your sentence to one that actually makes sense. Point mutations are simply changes in genomic structure that can cause a phenotypic change in the organism. It alters one nucleotid and thus "information" is not "gained" or "lost" but merely changed. And even if a part of the genome is simply lost, and this results in a change in the organism, it is still an example of evolution. Even just the duplicating of an entire genome is evolution. There isn't anything at all that says evolution requires the gaining of information. And even then, plenty of mutations occur that do result in a gain of information, whichever way you look at it. Transferring of plasmids in bacteria for example. But hey, here's an idea, why don't you buy a good evolutionary biology book and learn what yourself?

The rest of your post is just hand-waving.

Well what else am I supposed to do with something that is not at all relevant to the discussion. If it is just hand-waving, please show me how the parts of your posts which I responded to are relevant, and how I am wrong?

The fact is, if every individual animal on this earth is quickly adaptive -- or adaptive over just a few generations -- it would completely undercut the need for populations to wait thousands of years to evolve via random muations and natural selection.

Not at all, you just fail to see what this "adaptibility" is. What you appearantly see as the ability of an organism to change its own DNA, is just an inherent ability of an organism with a static DNA. No genomic changes occur during these "adaptations". They are just phenotypic changes while the genome remains the same. Do you think that when for example a certain animal changes its fur that it suddenly changes its DNA? It's just an ability the organism has evolved because of its life in a seasonally changing environment. The adaptibility is a way for the organism to cope with the changing of the environment they live in, on a schale of the lifetime of one organism. Evolution works on an infinite time schale. If there was no evolution, organisms would never evolve new characteristics that allow them to undergo phenotypical changes with a static genotype.

In fact, it would mean that your whole mechanism for change is FLAWED right out of the gate. The fact is, this puts your theory in an intellectual headlock. S

It doesn't mean that at all, and before you go and try to understand the evolution theory and even just basic biology, you will fail to see this.

 

[Opethian]

http://www2.ups.edu/biology/Peter/articles/Plasticity1992.pdf

http://www2.ups.edu/biology/Peter/ar...ticity1992.pdf

It's more than just color....

plasticity of fish body shape.....depending on diet....leading to a wide variety of cichlid fish

http://www2.ups.edu/biology/Peter/articles/Plasticity1992.pdfhttp://www2.ups.edu/biology/Peter/articles/Plasticity1992.pdf

Yet, there is no genetic basis to the different body shapes. The differences are the result of environmentally induced differences in growth rate and timing of sexual maturation. This adaptibility is a characteristic that probably evolved (yes, even the ability to adapt, which you claim refutes evolution, needs to be evolved ) because it allowed one species to survive in a large variety of environments with different prey.

 

[supersport]

http://www.pitt.edu/~jthst21/Hoverman.html

how does darwin explain this?

http://www.christianforums.com/[SIZE=+1]My research examines the ecology and evolution of phenotypic plasticity using freshwater snails as my model system. Snails are common in lakes, ponds, and marshes where they feed on periphyton and detritus. In these habitats, snails encounter many predators such as fish, crayfish, and insects (see below). These predators provide an excellent opportunity to examine predator-induced plasticity. In response to their predators, snails alter their behavior, shell shape, and life history decisions.[/SIZE]

 

[supersport]

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

opethian...I suggest you read this debate.


These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to serve as elements of the grand sweep of evolution. Thus, for a mutation to qualify as a representative member of the required multitude of long series that are supposed to produce evolution, it must bring new information not just to the genome of the organism, but the information must be new to the entire biocosm. The horizontal transfer of a gene from one species to another is not information new to the biocosm. To show evolution in action, one must at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory. Such a mutation must be one that could be a contributing member of a series of mutations that could lead to the vast increase in information required by the theory. Thus, for example, a mutation that disables a repressor gene causing a constitutive synthesis of an enzyme might be advantageous to an organism under special circumstances, but the disabling of a gene does not represent the mutations required by the theory.