Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[Opethian]

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

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

how does darwin explain this?

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

What's there to explain? Why don't you first read my previous posts and understand that this adaptibility is just an ability of a certain organism to get through its lifetime (during which his environment changes, and for example its predators may change).
Please try and make a point as to why this would pose a problem for evolution? This was even a part of my Ecology course at university, and no one there doubted the validity of the evolution theory. Your misunderstanding of the evolution theory and of genetics seems to make you think that adaptibility is in conflict with evolution, while it certainly isn't.

 

[MewtwoX]

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.

You've shown colour change. I still haven't seen any examples of major changes, but even then it doesn't make much of an impact as Scientists must merely take phenotype variation into consideration when they claim evolutionary change and show genetic change occured (something they already do).

But even so, I'm talking about the MECHANISM of change...and you simply do not have a biological mechanism to explain plasticity.

How do we not have a mechanism for Phentoypic Plasticity? It specific control varies from organism to organism, but generally the current structure of the organism can respond to the environment in either Epigenetic changes, or alterations in the transcriptome, proteome, interactome and regulome.

Instead, you guys say that to change traits. an accidental MUTATION has to happen and then spread throughout the POPULATION --

A mutation has to happen. Almost all mutations that happen are random (things such as transduction by retroviruses, phenotype alterations, base alterations and UV damamge do occur, but not on any large scale level signficant to Evolutionary change to say that mutation is directed by environment. Natural selection leads to the fixation of that mutant allele in the population.

Evolutionary Theory does not require that the mutation be accidental, but that merely a mutation occurs. It's just that most mutations are random rather than forced by outside sources, so mutation is referred to as random.

which I say is ridiculous...and I've proven that this is not necessary.

It's never been claimed that a mutation be random for Evolution to occur. It's been claimed that a mutation or formation of a heritable trait occur in order for mutation to occur.

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.

I've yet to see any scientists you've posted turn their back on the Theory of Evolution.

What you have posted has in fact shown some of the boons of evidence for Evolution. Things such as Evo-Devo show that ability for large variations to occur in the organism at a time, with mutations in the development genes (Hox genes). Comments on Genetic Accomodation appear to be talking about the additional heritable traits that can be evolutionary changes without being genetic changes (IE. Evolutionary Behaviour, Genetic Imprinting, etc.).

All of these are regularly discussed in Evoution classes, and in fact used as evidence for Evolution in their power to increase the amount of variation eligible for selection and thus evolutionary change.

Phenotypic Plasticity is one of the phenomena of Evolution you learn in First Year Biology classes, alongside all the specifics of Evolution.

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

No, I don't see why they need intelligence to decipher conditions. The developing structure of populations benefits greatest to have a system that doesn't fully rely on mutations for adaptation to the environment as while variations are consistantly within populations, there's no guarantee that a useful variation for a particular selection will be present and that means a risk of extinction for populations.

 

[Opethian]

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

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

opethian...I suggest you read this debate.

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

Why don't you try to argue for yourself, and to make at least one valid point?

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.

Not at all, because a certain change of information that has already occurred in other organisms, or a loss of information, in combination with the rest of the DNA of a certain species, can result in an entirely new genotype and new phenotypical properties. The entire statement above is false, and everything below it is based on that, so is useless too. The common tactic employed by creationists during these kinds of debates is to make up some sort of demand or requirement which is very hard to meet, but not relevant or just plain false.

 

[MewtwoX]

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.

Sounds like he's applying Information Theory and moving the goalposts. Trying to suggest that "information must be gained at a significant amount" by a mutation is under basic misunderstanding of what Evolution claims is the mechanism of change.

You'd do best not to quote from True Origin. They're the stuff of jokes... even a few giggles at Talk Origins.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

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

how does darwin explain this?

[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]

The answer is in the first line of your quote.

My research examines the ecology and evolution of phenotypic plasticity using freshwater snails as my model system.

The genes that allow for phenotypic plasticity have evolved over time. That is what this website is about. Studying why some populations have evolved greater plasticity than others. It is hardly evidence against the theory when it is part of it.

Please go find out what evolution is, not just the strawmen on the AIG sites.

 

[PromoterGene]

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.

I was making the case for natural selection. Random mutations have already been observed even in humans where one gene that has a certain length of code is longer in others. Denying the obvious again?

I'm not really sure what you're talking about when you say that mutations are to happen independent of the environment and not to the direct benefit of the organism. What does that mean? Last time I checked, a mutation is a mutation is a mutation. Mutations can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral. Mutations can be just a frameshift or something caused by the radiation of the sun, as well as various reasons. Again, it's hard to argue with you when you didn't even educate yourself of our position.

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.

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.

What in the world does this have ANYTHING to do with refuting the theory of evolution? What are you specifically refuting? All you've shown me is something I've already known: the environment can temporarily change the phenotype of an animal. I don't see how this is in any way an argument against evolution. By reading this, I'm embarrassed for you.

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 that the environment temporarily changing phenotype doesn't play a large role in evolution to begin with except the fact that evolution is responsible that kind of adaptation. Those who can adapt physically to their surroundings would pose a significant survival advantage, no? This kind of information you're telling us is related to zoology, and therefore you're going to gather more of it when researching the various ways of how animals live. I don't see how this damages the theory of evolution.

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.

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?

Your proof says nothing about the theory of evolution. If you ever bothered in actually researching the theory of evolution instead of going to anti-evolution message boards and websites to find a million arguments again, perhaps you'd realize why I'm embarrassed for you. Changing colors and individual characteristics is no secret to anyone interested in biology or encountered a lizard. You're hand waving an entire aspect of science, an important one, because of temporary adaptation? What about adaptation that seems to, I don't know, pass on generation to generation? Evolution has then taken place. Again, you have no interest in learning here, you're only trying to prove creationism to yourself and you're also working very hard to make people angry. Your arrogance is a reflection of your ignorance. You're not in the least bit convincing because you're not stating anything new or original--you merely don't have the mind to understand or appreciate science.

 

[gladiatrix]

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.

Scientists just didn't "decide on the nucleotide as their [your] unit of change". There are a long series of experiments that demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that DNA is the usual repository of genetic information (some viruses use RNA). There is no reasonable doubt that a sequence of nucleotides contains genetic information and that changes in the sequence change that information. Here's a short list of this scientific evidence from Wiki:

The DNA era

1. 1944Oswald Theodore Avery, Colin McLeod and Maclyn McCarty isolate DNA as the genetic material (at that time called transforming principle)
2. 1950Erwin Chargaff shows that the four nucleotides are not present in nucleic acids in stable proportions, but that some general rules appear to hold (e.g., that the amount of adenine, A, tends to be equal to that of thymine, T). Barbara McClintock discovers transposons in maize
3. 1952 The Hershey-Chase experiment proves the genetic information of phages (and all other organisms) to be DNA
4. 1953 DNA structure is resolved to be a double helix by James D. Watson and Francis Crick
5. 1956Jo Hin Tjio and Albert Levan established the correct chromosome number in humans to be 46
6. 1958 The Meselson-Stahl experiment demonstrates that DNA is semiconservatively replicated
7. 1961 The genetic code is arranged in triplets
8. 1964Howard Temin showed using RNA viruses that Watson's central dogma is not always true
9. 1970Restriction enzymes were discovered in studies of a bacterium, Haemophilius influenzae, enabling scientists to cut and paste DNA

The genomics era

1. 1977 DNA is sequenced for the first time by Fred Sanger, Walter Gilbert, and Allan Maxam working independently. Sanger's lab complete the entire genome of sequence of Bacteriophage Φ-X174;.
2. 1983 Kary Banks Mullis discovers the polymerase chain reaction enabling the easy amplification of DNA
3. 1989 The first human gene is sequenced by Francis Collins and Lap-Chee Tsui, it encodes the CFTR protein, defects in this gene cause cystic fibrosis
4. 1995 The genome of Haemophilus influenzae is the first genome of a free living organism to be sequenced
5. 1996 Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the first eukaryote genome sequence to be released
6. 1998 The first genome sequnce for a multicellular eukaryote, C. elegans is released
7. 2001 First draft sequences of the human genome are released simultaneously by the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics.
8. 2003 (14 April) Successful completion of Human Genome Project with 99% of the genome sequenced to a 99.99% accuracy [1]

HERE is a Powerpoint tutorial on the subject

 

[Split Rock]

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.

No Biologist will tell you that phenotypic change must be based on genotypic change. Phenotypic change can occur without a genetic basis and genotypic change can occur without affecting phenotype. What we do claim is that evolutionary change is based on genetic change. In other words, Speciation is based on genetic change within a population.

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Are you claiming that speciation is due to phenotypic plasticity? If this is so, then can you explain why different species of cats (e.g. jaguar, leopard, tiger, bobcat) are genetically distinct? Do you have evidence that one species can be transformed into another by altering their environment?

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.

Plasticity is indeed an interesting subject, but you have not shown that scientists have abandoned TOE because of their research into it.

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

What do you mean by "intelligence in the genome?" All individual organisms are capable of responding to their environment.. it is one of the defining characters of Life. This, however, has little to do with evolutionary change, ie. Speciation.

 

[gladiatrix]

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 above tells me that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to DNA or mutations. To begin with, the presence or absence of other organisms isn't going to be a factor in how MOST mutations occur.

Here is a site that is created for someone whose doesn't have a background in genetics that may be useful to you.

DNA from the Beginning

Recommended as a start for queries about the nature of genes and mutations: (all animated tutorials, just a few minutes)

A gene is made of DNA

The DNA molecule is shaped like a twisted ladder

DNA "words" are 3 letters long

WHAT IS A MUTATION?
Mutations are any permanent, heritable alterations in DNA. These alterations can be simple as a single base change (most common), insertions, deletions, rearrangements of segments of varying lengths, or can involve large pieces of DNA (visible pieces of chromosomes or whole chromosomes)

Chromosomes Carry Genes

Mutations are changes in genetic information

Mutations (categories with examples)

MUTATIONS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED.....
1. First, there may be an observable change (one that you can actually see) in the phenotype of the individual. For instance, a seed from a plant whose progeny are tall (phenotype or physical manifestation of gene expression) now has some offspring that are short as well as tall.

2. Second, if one can isolate the gene responsible for height, it is possible to take the "height gene" from the tall plant and the one from the short plant and compare the sequence to find the change. How this kind of thing is done and it's history, explained in the following animation:

A gene is a discrete sequence of DNA nucleotides
This is an image of a sequence, showing the individual bases for a gene (left) If there was a mutation, then one can compare the sequence of the mutant gene to that of the "wild type" gene to find the difference or differences between them (right). An example of a case where as single base change can result in a dramatic change is sickle-cell anemia. (below).

Good Explanation of the sickle cell mutation from PBS: A Mutation Story--Sickle Cell Anemia

How A Sequence is Done and Interpreted (from G.A.M.E.)

3. Some mutations involve large segments of DNA (pieces of chromosome, even whole chromosomes)...............

An example of such an extensive mutation is Down's syndrome. The most common reason for this is that the person is born with 3 copies of chromsome 21 instead of just 2 (normal). That is why Down's syndrome is also called Trisomy 21 (tri- means 3).

Here is a picture of the karyotype of a male Down's sufferer showing this:

4. Some types of cancer are the result of unfortunate rearrangements between chromosomes called translocations (2 chromosomes exchange parts). A classic case is Burkitt's lymphoma. Here is a karyotype of a cancer cell showing the translocation between chromosome 8 and chromosome 14 (click on the link for an explanation)

5. Many cancers are the result of many different kinds of mutations (point mutations, deletions, insertions, translocations). Read about that HERE (pdf).
MORE:
Oncogenes (Genes Involved in Causing Cancer)
Cancer (a general discussion)
Tumor Suppressor Genes

WHAT WOULD CAUSE MUTATIONS?
A. Any number of things can damage DNA in such a way as to cause mutations. They are called mutagens. If the resulting mutations cause cancer, these mutagens are also regarded as carcinogens:

• Many mutations result from copying errors by the molecules that make new copies of the DNA (also mechanisms in place that prevents or repairs most of these)
• Most mutations are the outcome of spontaneous degradation of the DNA due to the fact that it resides in a salty, aqueous environment (conditions inside the cell itself). Think of it as cellular "wear and tear" on the DNA (repair mechanisms in place that fix the vast majority of these)
• many chemicals
• UV (ultra-violet) light (why tanning is bad for you)
• X-ray
• ionizing radiation

B. There are also cellular mechanisms that can repair certain types of damage or "lesions" before it has a chance to become a mutation (a site of damage that can eventually become a mutation is called a "pre-mutational event"). Not every DNA lesion can be repaired or gets repaired in time. Here are some sites explaining a few of these mechanisms:

• DNA Repair Mechanisms -Kimball's On-line
  Biology
• DNA Repair Proteins
  [*]DNA repair in the bacterium E. coli (these mechanisms were first discovered in bacteria)
  [*]DNA repair gene in humans

C. Be aware that every attempt is made by the cell to keep the DNA from acquiring changes. Not only are there mechanisms to repair damage, the molecules that copy the DNA often have "domains" (a site on a molecule that performs a specific function) whose job it is to "proof-read" (check to make sure the base used in copying the parent strand is correct). These molecules are called DNA-polymerases.

If the genetic material being copied is RNA, it's it's generically known as an RNA-polymerase (some viruses use these). Not all polymerases have proof-reading domains. An example of this is the reverse transcriptase of the AIDS virus. This virus mutates like mad because the errors made by the transcriptase aren't corrected. Each person who develops AIDS will have a copy of the virus that is unique to him/her because of the mutations it accumulates while replicating in that person (it "evolves" in response to the immune system's attempts to keep it in check and in response to drugs used to foil it's replication).

D. The fact that HIV mutates rapidly was used to convict a killer. Dr. Richard Schmidt was convicted of purposely injecting Janice Trayhan, a former lover, with blood tainted with HIV and hepatitis C after she called off their affair. The blood was believed to have been drawn from an HIV- and HCV-positive patient around the time of the breakup. The state's expert witnesses established that PCR-based analysis of human HIV can be used to identify HIV strains.

Although the DNA sequences used to establish the source of the infections were not identical with the sequences in the infected individuals, HIV is known to mutate rapidly. Even within an infected individual, the virus changes over time. The biological or statistical question, therefore, is how the viral sequence variation in individuals infected from a common source compares to the extent of variation among individuals infected from disparate sources. For a full explanation click on the following link:

1. Guilty Sequence (or Evolution via Phylogenetic Analysis gets its day in court)

2. Gretchen Vogel, Phylogenetic Analysis: Getting Its Day in Court, 275 Science 1559 (1997) (NOTE: this case cited in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
3.Ancient Remnants of Viral Infection Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

E. ~~RECENT DATA~~==> Scientists have reconstructed the structure of an ancestral gene. The press headline is "Evolution reversed in mice", but that's a bad title. What the scientists did was to reconstruct a 530-million-year-old Hox gene by combining key portions of two modern mouse Hox genes that descended from this archaic gene. A better press release about this experiment is given HERE from the University of Utah.

For those unfamilar with what Hox genes do:
The Homeobox Page

Putting on the Finishing Touches (homeobox, hox discussed)

Homeobox (Wiki)

Here's a really good explanation from Pharyngula==> Regulatory evolution of the Hox1 gene

 

[supersport]

it's amazing how many seemingly-intelligent people don't know what the definition of RANDOM is. How can a mutation be random if it only happens in the presence of another organism? You guys have missed this boat on this one.


http://www.geraldschroeder.com/evolution.html


At the basis of the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution lie two basic assumptions: That changes in morphologies are induced by random mutations on the genome; and, that these changes in the morphology of plant or animal make the life form either more or less successful in the competition to survive. It is by the aspect of nature's selection that evolutionists claim to remove the theory of evolution from that of a random process. The selection is in no way random. It is a function of the environment. The randomness however remains as the basic driving force that produces the varied morphologies behind the selection.


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Can random mutations produce the evolution of life? That is the question addressed herein.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Because evolution is primarily a study of the history of life, statistical analyses of evolution are plagued by having to assume the many conditions that were extant during those long gone eras. Rates of mutations, the contents of the "original DNA, " the environmental conditions, all effect the rate and direction of the changes in morphology and are all unknowns. One must never ask what the likelihood is that a specific set of mutations will occur to produce a specific animal. This would imply a direction to evolution and basic to all Darwinian theories of evolution is the assumption that evolution has no direction. The induced changes, and hence the new morphologies, are totally random, regardless of the challenges presented by the environment.[/FONT]

Please remember what I just highlighted in RED and GREEN.
------------------------------------------

but then again I can see where you get your information because you read it in places like the following link, who give you information that's only partially true:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.

Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

So basically, you have to agree or disagree that mutations are truly random. The evolutionists' site is somehow proclaiming that the environment can force the rate of mutations (which would insinuate nonrandomness)......but according to the first link, this would violate the rules for randomness....which any common-sense thinker would have to agree with. The fact is, I have never heard or read in any book about evolution that selection or the environment can stimulate a mutation -- yet that's what you guys are insisting on....instead mutations should be totally random, only to be then selected ------as indicated below.
------------------------------------------


http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf060/sf060p07.htm

One seemingly unassailable dogma of evolutionary biology insists that natural selection involves, first, the continuous, random, environment-independent generation of genetic mutations; and, second, the subsequent fixation of those mutations that are favored by prevailing conditions. In other works, the genetic mutations cannot be influenced by external events and conditions. But in recent experiments with bacteria (E. coli), J. Cairns et al, at the Harvard School of Public Health, find they actually do produce mutations in direct response to changes in their environment. The adjective "purposeful" has even been applied to the action of these bacteria! Can anything be more heretical?

 

[random_guy]

...stuff about random...

Random in this case doesn't mean uniformly random. It's known that some DNA sequences are more stable than others, and some sequences are more prone to replication errors.

Also, I still don't understand what the heck you're even talking about. We can't predict mutations, so we slap the label random on it. Random is a statistical description. Random could mean anything from uniform to normal distribution.

Why don't you tell us why this randomness is so important to your argument.

 

[supersport]

Random in this case doesn't mean uniformly random. It's known that some DNA sequences are more stable than others, and some sequences are more prone to replication errors.

Also, I still don't understand what the heck you're even talking about. We can't predict mutations, so we slap the label random on it. Random is a statistical description. Random could mean anything from uniform to normal distribution.

Why don't you tell us why this randomness is so important to your argument.

That first link will tell you...go back and read it. The fact is, the whole arguement revolves around randomness and/or nonrandomness. If the environment is shown to cause a mutation to happen then that would infer direction. Toe, however insists that life is non-directed. That was the whole point of Origin of Species, to get around direction.

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000345-p-4.html this is a description of what randomness means from well-informed evolutionist:

Mutation is random in two senses. First, although we may be able to predict the probability that a certain mutation will occur, we cannot predict which of a large number of gene copies will undergo the mutation. The spontaneous process of mutation is stochastic rather than deterministic. Second, and more importantly, mutation is random in the sense that the chance that a particular mutation will occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous

 

[random_guy]

That first link will tell you...go back and read it. The fact is, the whole arguement revolves around randomness and/or nonrandomness. If the environment is shown to cause a mutation to happen then that would infer direction. Toe, however insists that life is non-directed. That was the whole point of Origin of Species, to get around direction.

So you're arguing that something such as the Sun causing a mutation in a specific gene is non-random and this invalidates evolution?

 

[supersport]

So you're arguing that something such as the Sun causing a mutation in a specific gene is non-random and this invalidates evolution?

Put it this way....according to Toe, mutations are to be random. Evidently different people have different concepts to what this actually means. From what I have gathered and read from evolutionists, randomness means -- or should mean -- indecpendent from environment and independent from the needs of the organism. Thus random mutations happen, and THEN selection sorts through them and picks them through survival of the fittest.

But this defies all rationality. Look at a school of fish, for example. If you see a big group of fish swimming together in mass, they're all generally the same color. You don't see a mass of grey fish with random other colors swimming with them, as Toe would suggest. Thus there is nothing random about a school of 1000 fish all being the exact same color....I suggest they all got their color from a directed mutation. (directed by their particular environment)

So to answer your question, yes, if the sun causes/directs a mutation it would contradict Toe.

 

[joey444]

Maybe the gray fish are easier to spot against the brighter colors of the reef, and are caught easier by larger fish.

Step 1: Lots of blue butterflies start mating
Step 2: A few of the butterflies have a random mutation, so that they're gray. (It could even be just one, although that would take longer for the gray population the start thriving)
Step 3: The grays mate with the blues, producing more grays.
Step 4: Smoke comes in from an industrial factory that was just built. The gray butterflies are harder to spot now, and the blue ones are much easier to see.
Step 5: Blue butterflies are killed.
Step 6: Blue butterflies quickly become the minority, and almost none are left compared to the gray butterflies, who are now in the large majority.

 

[supersport]

Maybe the gray fish are easier to spot against the brighter colors of the reef, and are caught easier by larger fish.

Step 1: Lots of blue butterflies start mating
Step 2: A few of the butterflies have a random mutation, so that they're gray. (It could even be just one, although that would take longer for the gray population the start thriving)
Step 3: The grays mate with the blues, producing more grays.
Step 4: Smoke comes in from an industrial factory that was just built. The gray butterflies are harder to spot now, and the blue ones are much easier to see.
Step 5: Blue butterflies are killed.
Step 6: Blue butterflies quickly become the minority, and almost none are left compared to the gray butterflies, who are now in the large majority.

Or, maybe the the blue butterflies don't have to DIE because it is now known that individual butterflies change their patterns seasonally to adjust to their surrondings....this includes temperature/weather and/or backgrounds and predators.

http://www.ou.edu/wanglab/Evo-devo.html

Why and how do butterflies change their color patterns on their wings seasonally?

http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/moths/polyphenism1.html

 

[supersport]

Mutations are random; that is, a specific mutation doesn't occur for a specific reason or at a specific time. Mutations occur continually, but exactly what mutation occurs is totally unpredictable, nor do mutations occur because they are needed. Bilogical Anthropology (second edition). Pg 65; Michael Alan Park

 

[Asimov]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] One must never ask what the likelihood is that a specific set of mutations will occur to produce a specific animal. This would imply a direction to evolution and basic to all Darwinian theories of evolution is the assumption that evolution has no direction. The induced changes, and hence the new morphologies, are totally random, regardless of the challenges presented by the environment.[/FONT]

Please remember what I just highlighted in RED and GREEN.
------------------------------------------

Misapplication. The likelihood of a specific set of mutations is probably very low.

However, you take a random number generator that generates 1 million numbers randomly....what is the likelihood that you'll get that specific combination? 1 in 1 million.

I've just done something that has a 1 in 1 million chance of occuring.

Evolution has no direction because it isn't goal-oriented in creating specific animals, buddy boy. Evolution is about adaptation and change in a changing environment.

 

[random_guy]

Put it this way....according to Toe, mutations are to be random. Evidently different people have different concepts to what this actually means. From what I have gathered and read from evolutionists, randomness means -- or should mean -- indecpendent from environment and independent from the needs of the organism. Thus random mutations happen, and THEN selection sorts through them and picks them through survival of the fittest.

But this defies all rationality. Look at a school of fish, for example. If you see a big group of fish swimming together in mass, they're all generally the same color. You don't see a mass of grey fish with random other colors swimming with them, as Toe would suggest. Thus there is nothing random about a school of 1000 fish all being the exact same color....I suggest they all got their color from a directed mutation. (directed by their particular environment)

So to answer your question, yes, if the sun causes/directs a mutation it would contradict Toe.

Okay, here's the problem. Random just means we don't know enough information to model it, or that we won't ever know enough information to model it. For example, if we're shooting x-rays at a plant, it will cause mutations. Is this random, according to your definition? The mutations were caused by the a non-random source, humans with an X-Ray machine.

 

[Split Rock]

Put it this way....according to Toe, mutations are to be random. Evidently different people have different concepts to what this actually means. From what I have gathered and read from evolutionists, randomness means -- or should mean -- indecpendent from environment and independent from the needs of the organism. Thus random mutations happen, and THEN selection sorts through them and picks them through survival of the fittest.

But this defies all rationality. Look at a school of fish, for example. If you see a big group of fish swimming together in mass, they're all generally the same color. You don't see a mass of grey fish with random other colors swimming with them, as Toe would suggest. Thus there is nothing random about a school of 1000 fish all being the exact same color....I suggest they all got their color from a directed mutation. (directed by their particular environment)

So to answer your question, yes, if the sun causes/directs a mutation it would contradict Toe.

1. If you actually look at the details of each fish's color pattern they are different. They are not identical. This type of variation is dependent on the organism, and differs between populations (based on genetic as well as non-genetic factors). In some species color varies more than with other species.

2.If organisms are so very good at altering their phenotype to match their environment, can you explain why the vast majority of species that lived on this planet are extinct?