Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[Tomk80]

you're probably right...who said they would? I never claimed animals were invincible...I merely claimed they don't have to wait on their populations to adapt to their climates and surroundings.

Well, since you say notto is right, they apparantly have to.

Again, limited adaptability. Yes. But for larger adaptations (like the bigger ears and special fur of the desert fox or the color changing coat of the arctic fox), mutation + selection is the way to go.

 

[notto]

well, heck EVERY animal can adapt through populations -- otherwise, according to you guys -- no animals would be around.

Well, many of them go extinct before their population can evolve to handle new environmental pressures.

So not every animal can adapt and individuals never adapt. They die with the traits they are born with. They do not gain traits based on their environment and pass them on. This is well understood, observable, and arguing against it is pretty silly.

Somehow I think your confusion comes down to not really understanding the theory of evolution and how variation in a population fuels it.

 

[Tomk80]

All I care to do is shoot down the outdated mechanism of random mutations via natural selection...after that it's all gravy. (I've even let atheists do it for me.)

Random mutation and natural selection. Random mutations do not occur via natural selection. Natural selection works on random mutations.

 

[supersport]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/

how do you explain this???? How does this fit under neodarwinism's umbrella?

 

[notto]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/

how do you explain this???? How does this fit under neodarwinism?

Common descent. For someone who claims they have researched evolution enough to overthrow it, you seem to lack a grasp of some of its more important concepts.

What books on evolution have you read?

 

[Tomk80]

So if you think genes are so important, how do you explain that mice and humans have the same 29,000 genes? How is it that they're expressed so differently to make us different creatures?

Through mutations in the regulatory regions of these genes. If genes are expressed at a different time or longer or shorter, this will result in differences. This difference in expression is the result of changes in the regulatory regions of the DNA instead of the regions where the genes themselves are. This has already been covered in this thread a few pages earlier.

Also, note that although a lot of genes are the same, we definitely also have quite a lot of other genes. When looking at our closest relative, the chimpanzee, only around 30% of the genes is exactly the same.

 

[Mincus]

What books on evolution have you read?

I'd make an educated guess at none.

 

[TheBear]

*checking in*

I need to get caught up. (Lot's more pages since my last visit. )

 

[Tomk80]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/

how do you explain this???? How does this fit under neodarwinism's umbrella?

Common descent. A nice example is the example of the tail. Both mice and men have the genes for the tail. Only, a mutation in the DNA in men makes sure these genes are not expressed, while this mutation has not occurred in mice.

Again, it's not only the genes that are important, but also the regions in the DNA that regulate their expression.

 

[supersport]

Common descent. For someone who claims they have researched evolution enough to overthrow it, you seem to lack a grasp of some of its more important concepts.

What books on evolution have you read?

spare me....you guys have been saying for ever that organs and structures that were specific to different animals came from random mutations built on top of each other over time. This is how you explain the diversity of life....but there's a LOT of diversity that would have to happen between the mouse and man.

Give it up...your theory is doomed.

 

[JedPerkins]

What's there to collapse, Supersport? Evolution and the Bible are incompatible. I have four axioms against evolution:

1. There's no need for evolution, since God created the universe perfect.
2. The universe has only been in operation for 6000 years.
3. Evolution violates God's principles of love and harmony.
4. Since Jesus is pro-Creation, why should His followers be pro-Evolution?

Even if you considered 1 and 2 to be completely true based on the Bible (and ignoring all evidence to the contrary as I know you do), 3 makes no sense. Evolution has no bearing on God's principles of love and harmony. As for 4... many Christians ignore a lot of what Jesus was for, why not this?

 

[Tomk80]

Common descent. For someone who claims they have researched evolution enough to overthrow it, you seem to lack a grasp of some of its more important concepts.

What books on evolution have you read?

I have an idea that on this topic, maybe a book on genetics would work better for him. Understanding, for example, promotor regions and what they do would have saved him from his a.coli disaster. Understanding what kind of changes can occur because of genetics and why.

supersport, maybe this is a good place for you to start.

 

[Tomk80]

spare me....you guys have been saying for ever that organs and structures that were specific to different animals came from random mutations built on top of each other over time. This is how you explain the diversity of life....but there's a LOT of diversity that would have to happen between the mouse and man.

Well, there is also a lot of difference between the genomes of mice and men. Especially in the regulatory regions. Have you noted that down yet, so you can look it up?

Give it up...your theory is doomed.

Why? Because you don't understand genetics?

edited to add bits

 

[supersport]

But it's not just mice...seems we are two-thirds fly as well:

Humans and fruit flies are closely related. Of the fly's 13,601 genes, scientists believe that possibly two-thirds may have counterparts in humans. If we understand how these genes work in the fruit fly then we gain understanding about how they work in ourselves

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/


I thought are genes were supposed to build up information!!!? Yet we are no more complex than a mouse or fly!

 

[Tomk80]

But it's not just mice...seems we are two-thirds fly as well:

Humans and fruit flies are closely related. Of the fly's 13,601 genes, scientists believe that possibly two-thirds may have counterparts in humans. If we understand how these genes work in the fruit fly then we gain understanding about how they work in ourselves

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/

*mumbles: "regulatory regions"*

Also, the quote says "counterparts", so they aren't the same. They are modified versions of the same gene.

 

[Mincus]

Well, even if supersport isn't learning anything I am. Thanks for the links. Genetics is somewhat fascinating.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

But it's not just mice...seems we are two-thirds fly as well:

Humans and fruit flies are closely related. Of the fly's 13,601 genes, scientists believe that possibly two-thirds may have counterparts in humans. If we understand how these genes work in the fruit fly then we gain understanding about how they work in ourselves

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/


I thought are genes were supposed to build up information!!!? Yet we are no more complex than a mouse or fly!

You are right, it is not just mice, we are also fly as well. We have a common ancestor,as you are so rightly pointing out.

What is your point.?

 

[Tomk80]

Well, even if supersport isn't learning anything I am. Thanks for the links. Genetics is somewhat fascinating.

heheh. Genetics. Learn it, love it

 

[supersport]

The fact is, for decades evolutionists have been telling us that biological structures are determined by their genes. but now, evo devo says differently...

What evo devo is saying is that genes have a wide array of uses. In otherwords a gene will not just affect one region of the body....it can effect many. Not only that but a gene in one creature can act differently in another. The problem which then arises for evolutionists is this: If the same gene can determine specific body parts as radically different as a fruit fly’s leg and/or a mouse’s brain, then that gene really isn’t determining much of anything at all. The fact is, the gene really is just a player in the master plan -- a plan that is undiscovered. So I'll ask again....why does a mouse develop into a mouse, while humans develop into humans even though they share the same genes?

If you guys are so intelligent and informed then you will be able to tell me. If you cannot answer me then I'll just assume your theory should be tossed into the trashcan.

 

[TheBear]

Well, even if supersport isn't learning anything I am. Thanks for the links. Genetics is somewhat fascinating.

That's awsome!

Welcome to CF, btw.