Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[TheBear]

Welcome also, to supersport!

 

[Tomk80]

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

Not really, it's more a change in nuance.

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?

And I've given the answer a number of times now. It's really annoying that you keep ignoring it. What is very important is how long and when a gene is expressed during the developmental stages (the 'devo' in evo devo). If these regions on the gene are changed, the structure is changed. Those regions are also on the DNA, only before or after the gene.

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.

I've told you now three times. Methinks that should be enough, no?

Have you studied the link I gave you already? Did you understand it? Do you need more links explaining in more detail or in simpler terms or do you have questions?

 

[Mincus]

That's awsome!

Welcome to CF, btw.

Thanks.

 

[supersport]

So titless, how did "genetic toolboxes" evolve?

I noticed you dodged my question...so i just hurled my copy of the Blind Watchmaker into the trash

 

[notto]

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.

Because as your own article pointed out, we don't share all the same genes.

Again, your own source defeats your argument.

Can you tell me why one person develops black skin while another has white skin? Here is a hint. Its the same reason that mice give birth to mice and humans give birth to humans even though they share some of the same genes.

 

[Gracchus]

I said EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH is adaptive, regardless of the fact that evolutionists insist that adaptation happens only through populations and only through random mutations via selection.

Actually, evolutionists don't insist anything of the sort, since it is obviously untrue. Someone said something about that... Oh yes:

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one that is most adaptable to change." -- Charles Robert Darwin (1809-82)


I think he was an evolutionist, but he didn't know anything about genetics and mutations. Oh, you might note that he did not say animal, he said species, for it is true not only of animals, but also of plants, fungi, protists and bacteria.

 

[supersport]

Because as your own article pointed out, we don't share all the same genes.

Again, your own source defeats your argument.

Can you tell me why one person develops black skin while another has white skin? Here is a hint. Its the same reason that mice give birth to mice and humans give birth to humans even though they share some of the same genes.

why don't you answer my question? How/why do mice develop into mice while humans develop into humans if they share the same genes? You guys have been telling us for decades that because we share 97% of the same genes with apes that this proves we are descendants.........so did we descend directly from mice or apes?...evidently our DNA is closer to mice.

 

[Edx]

heheh good catch Gracchus

 

[MewtwoX]

He answered your question. The genes we don't share lead to the differentiation, as well as the higher category regulation of genetic transcription and translation events.

As for your other point:

...Differences within these individual genes -- the precise sequences of the four-letter DNA code -- spell out the obvious differences between the two mammalian species. On a letter-by-letter basis, the genes are 85 percent the same.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/05/MN153329.DTL&type=science

Humans have more similarity to Chimp Genomes than Mice Genomes.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

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.

What gene do you have in mind that determines a fruitflys leg and a mouses brain, give us evidence or you are just making things up.

What is the point in your charade?

 

[joey444]

His point is that there's no way to convince him otherwise.

 

[Gracchus]

why don't you answer my question? How/why do mice develop into mice while humans develop into humans if they share the same genes?

Well we do have a lot of the same features as mice: A dorsal nerve cord, a spine, a cranium, and appendicular skeleton with four appendages, hair, teeth, seven cervical vertebrae, etc.

You guys have been telling us for decades that because we share 97% of the same genes with apes that this proves we are descendants.........so did we descend directly from mice or apes?...evidently our DNA is closer to mice.

We did not descend from mice. We do share a common ancestor with mice. We did not descend from apes. We are apes, and we share a common ancestor with modern apes. That is one of the most amusing things about common descent. We are actually cousins to every living thing. We are all one big family. (Would someone please tell cousin Buster to quit pooping on my lawn?)

And humans too, are all cousins or closer relations. It might lend perspective if we remembered that those enemies we're throwing rockets at are cousin Abdul and cousin Yasmin and all those little kids we call "collateral damage are babies in our family.

Of course even if we were all descended from Adam and Eve, it would still make all us humans one big family, though perhaps not a happy one.

 

[notto]

You guys have been telling us for decades that because we share 97% of the same genes with apes that this proves we are descendants.........so did we descend directly from mice or apes?...evidently our DNA is closer to mice.

We did not descend directly from any living species of ape or mouse. The theory of evolution never states we did. The theory of evolution states that at some point in the past, currently living apes shared a common ancestor with currently living humans (who technically, are apes). The theory would go on to say that prior to that, that common descendent shared a common ancestor with the branch of mammals that because currently living species of mice.

These 3 lines evolved independently after each split of common ancestry so none of the currently living species evolved from any other currently living species.

This is another fairly basic concept involved with the theory of evolution. If you had truly been studying the theory of evolution objectively, you would understand this.

 

[supersport]

We did not descend directly from any living species of ape or mouse. The theory of evolution never states we did. The theory of evolution states that at some point in the past, currently living apes shared a common ancestor with currently living humans (who technically, are apes). The theory would go on to say that prior to that, that common descendent shared a common ancestor with the branch of mammals that because currently living species of mice.

These 3 lines evolved independently after each split of common ancestry so none of the currently living species evolved from any other currently living species.

This is another fairly basic concept involved with the theory of evolution. If you had truly been studying the theory of evolution objectively, you would understand this.

yea and it's too bad you cannot find this mystical creature! -- and you never will because it never existed...it's just a figment of wild imagination -- as is all of Toe, which cannot prove a bloody darn thing.

 

[joey444]

You know those bones they're digging up that don't look like humans, but don't look like apes either? Meet grandpa.

Edit: Yes, I know it isn't actually my grandpa.

 

[Mincus]

You know those bones they're digging up that don't look like humans, but don't look like apes either? Meet grandpa.

That could be a direct quote from a Hovind "seminar."

 

[notto]

yea and it's too bad you cannot find this mystical creature! -- and you never will because it never existed.

Doesn't change the fact that your view of evolution is wrong. Could we address that before you once again change the subject and move the goalsposts? Do you accept that your understanding of the theory of evolution is probably incorrect? Will you learn what it really says before continuing with more strawmen based on your own misunderstanding of the theory? If you plan to take it down, you need to understand just what it is you are railing against. Don't you agree that might be a good first step?

The theory of evolution doesn't need to find the actual creature and we would never expect to (although the transitional fossil record paints the picture quite well). There are many independent lines of evidence that lead us to the conclusion of common descent (with the genetic evidence you yourself have posted being one of them)

Except for the first skull, these skulls are arranged from oldest to youngest. A fairly compelling piece of evidence for evolution and common descent. Can you guess what the first skull is? How about the last?

Now, can you provide any lines of actual evidence that support your claims? That is how science works.

 

[joey444]

Reverse Poe's Law of some sort?

 

[supersport]

Now, can you provide any lines of actual evidence that support your claims? That is how science works.

funny how when you're pushed into a corner about providing proof you post something that requires an inference. The fact is either these skulls are humans OR they are apes...it would help to see their whole bodies.

i'll ask you again....can you provide me with any airtight piece of proof that shows darwinism to be true?

 

[Mincus]

funny how when you're pushed into a corner about providing proof you post something that requires an inference. The fact is either these skulls are humans OR they are apes...it would help to see their whole bodies.

i'll ask you again....can you provide me with any airtight piece of proof that shows darwinism to be true?

Humans ARE apes...