How widespread is plasticity?

[supersport]

It has been shown that animals change biologically without the need for RM + NS. You obviously do not disagree with this. My contention is if plasticity can change the size, color, shape of animals (ie finches, peppered moths, tadpoles, etc) then this could give the ILLUSION of evolution in the fossil record. Do you understand this? Do you understand how if a peppered moth has morphological abilities then it might give the ILLUSION that "selection" made these creatures "evolve"? Same with the beaks of Darwin's/Grant's finches. I wrote a huge post on how animals emerge pre-adapted, and continue to adapt throughout their lifetimes. Do you not see how this could give the ILLUSION of evolution? -- you've already attributed both the peppered moths and finches as examples of evolution -- yet each case is most certainly an example of either plasticity or the "throwing of switches" during development.

next.........

Your favorite comeback seems to be this: Oh but these new traits will not be passed on to the next generation.

This is a strawman statement. And that's because it is not necessary for traits to be "passed on". In a prior post I explained how animals develop in their wombs/eggs according to their external environments. The fact is, animals can emerge different sizes, shapes and colors based on external needs. How God programmed this I do not know...but it is not my job to explain how.

And see here's where the evolutionary magic fairy dust comes in; all you guys have to do is NOT TEST ANYHING!!! Don't test to see if animals emerge with correct traits. Don't test to see how future generations may emerge with new colors, shapes and sizes to match their new environment. That way it's easy to say -- "Oh well, that's not evolution because furture generations will not change" or "Oh animals cannot pass on acquired traits." Both of these are intellectually dishonest statements....the first one is simply untested and ignored, the second is a strawman.

Indeed, evolutionary scientists simply do not test future offspring upon environmental changes -- that way they can continue the dishonest myth that their way is the only way..........but it's not the only way.

Yet then you guys say "oh well....plasticity has evolved over millions of years"

Well heck, has Lamarckism evolved too? This logic is humorous because with one stroke of the pen (keyboard) you have unfalsified your theory. In otherwords you have the traditional explanation of evolution......yet if that doesn't work out for you, you can always wave your hand and attribute it to "evolution":

another thing evolutionists do is weasel trickery into their definitions and explanations. Look at the sub-title of this article.

http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~eeob/eeob400/plastic_snakes.pdf#search='plasticity%20jaw%20size '


Genes and environment stretch snake jaws to meet the demands of prey size.

Who are they kidding? Of course there are genes involved, otherwise the animal wouldn't be alive. But in the case of plasticity, the only things involved are the animal and the environment. Why are genes being brought up if there's no genetic change? And the fact is, if this snakes jaws or head can grow larger, and this change happens over the population, it could give the ILLUSION of evolution in the fossil record.

Notice I'm not calling it "evolution" -- yet that's what evolutionists do when they dig bones up that appear different from their ancestors -- but this, once again is a strawman.


p.s. By the way -- I still have not gotten a decent explanation of how plasticity happens if there is no intelligence in the genome to decipher external conditions. Morphological change begins with a conscious awareness of external conditions...which translates to a physical change. This falsifies your theory in my eyes. ---- You cannot tell me that a morphological change in response to a predator happens simply because of a "chemical reaction." Every creature has brain -- and they all use it differently.

 

[notto]

Do you understand how if a peppered moth has morphological abilities then it might give the ILLUSION that "selection" made these creatures "evolve"?

Do you understand that the peppered moth has been studies extensively and a genetic component has been found that explains the color change? Do you understand that this change follows standard Mendelian genetics? Do you understand that this directly contradicts your claims? There is no illusion. It is a directly observed and studied mechanism that lays waste to your claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_genetics

Breeding experiments have shown that in Biston betularia betularia, the allele for melanism producing f. carbonaria is controlled by a single locus. The melanic allele is dominant to the non-melanic allele. This situation is however, somewhat complicated by the presence of three other alleles that produce indistinguishable morphs of f. medionigra. These are of intermediate dominance, but this is not complete (Majerus, 1998).
In Biston betularia cognataria, the melanic allele (producing f. swettaria) is similarly dominant to the non-melanic allele. There are also some intermediate morphs


You need to familiarize yourself with what we do know before you make claims of what we don't know.

 

[supersport]

Do you understand that the peppered moth has been studies extensively and a genetic component has been found that explains the color change? Do you understand that this change follows standard Mendelian genetics? Do you understand that this directly contradicts your claims? There is no illusion. It is a directly observed and studied mechanism that lays waste to your claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_genetics

Breeding experiments have shown that in Biston betularia betularia, the allele for melanism producing f. carbonaria is controlled by a single locus. The melanic allele is dominant to the non-melanic allele. This situation is however, somewhat complicated by the presence of three other alleles that produce indistinguishable morphs of f. medionigra. These are of intermediate dominance, but this is not complete (Majerus, 1998).
In Biston betularia cognataria, the melanic allele (producing f. swettaria) is similarly dominant to the non-melanic allele. There are also some intermediate morphs


You need to familiarize yourself with what we do know before you make claims of what we don't know.

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

http://www.sicb.org/meetings/2003/symposia/physiologyofplasticity.php3

I have different, more logical/real-life/proven explanation

 

[Tomk80]

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

http://www.sicb.org/meetings/2003/symposia/physiologyofplasticity.php3

I have different explanation

One that doesn't hold for peppered moths. Not all butterflies are peppered moths, supersport. You point to a phenomenon in a different species, one that doesn't occur in peppered moths.

 

[supersport]

One that doesn't hold for peppered moths. Not all butterflies are peppered moths, supersport. You point to a phenomenon in a different species, one that doesn't occur in peppered moths.

you are embarrassing yourself....read the top link. If you think only some butterflies and moths have this capability you are fooling yourself. That bottom picture looks just like a peppered moth - just different colors.

 

[Tomk80]

you are embarrassing yourself....read the top link. If you think only some butterflies and moths have this capability you are fooling yourself. That bottom picture looks just like a peppered moth - just different colors.

Looks just like=/=is.

Peppered moths do not change from brown to black due to seasonal differences. We know this because this it is observed that they don't. We further no that these color patterns are genetic, because they follow the breeding patterns that should be expected if they were genetic. We confirmed this in experiments, were the environmental circumstances were the same for all peppered moths. Notto gave you the link. Read it for a change.

It is you sir, who is fooling himself.

 

[supersport]

Looks just like=/=is.

Peppered moths do not change from brown to black due to seasonal differences. We know this because this it is observed that they don't. We further no that these color patterns are genetic, because they follow the breeding patterns that should be expected if they were genetic. We confirmed this in experiments, were the environmental circumstances were the same for all peppered moths. Notto gave you the link. Read it for a change.

It is you sir, who is fooling himself.

if you notice on the first link it says that many moths have the ability of cryptic coloration to background surfaces....the bottom photo looks exactly like a peppered moth -- just green instead of black or white.

You are fooling yourself.

 

[Tomk80]

if you notice on the first link it says that many moths have the ability of cryptic coloration to background surfaces....the bottom photo looks exactly like a peppered moth -- just green instead of black or white.

You are fooling yourself.

Read me post again and respond to the points I made instead of this farce of a reply.

 

[supersport]

Read me post again and respond to the points I made instead of this farce of a reply.

I said nothing about SEASONS regarding the peppered moth...I said background coloring. My links dispute whatever you are trying to pull. The fact is, moths have plasticity in their color just like spiders, beetles, worms, insects, reptiles, mammals and birds. Everything is adaptive. Some more than others. Many have abilities that others may not have. It is proven that moths have morphological cryptic abilities -- if you want to say that somehow the peppered moth does not, and it has to rely on DEATH to evolve, then go ahead and entertain yourself with your own delusions. I could care less.

 

[TheBear]

I am absolutely amazed by the willful ignorance and tenacious dogma held by some.

 

[TheGnome]

I said nothing about SEASONS regarding the peppered moth...I said background coloring. My links dispute whatever you are trying to pull. The fact is, moths have plasticity in their color just like spiders, beetles, worms, insects, reptiles, mammals and birds. Everything is adaptive. Some more than others. Many have abilities that others may not have. It is proven that moths have morphological cryptic abilities -- if you want to say that somehow the peppered moth does not, and it has to rely on DEATH to evolve, then go ahead and entertain yourself with your own delusions. I could care less.

I'm embarrassed for you. Reading your posts actually makes my face blush. Do you actually read what any of these intelligent people have to say to you, or do you skim over it, take out some things you don't agree nor understand and refute them with the same tired and wrong arguments over and over again? I've been following your threads for awhile, and I'm convinced you don't even fully read people's posts--never mind clicking on their links.

You make no effort to understand science. This is a holy war to you, this has nothing to do with science at this point. Not all people are cut out to understand science. For many people, science is too complex for them. You are one of those people. That's normally not a problem, but the fact that you think you understand it makes you an irritating little troll. Give up already.

 

[supersport]

I'm embarrassed for you. Reading your posts actually makes my face blush. Do you actually read what any of these intelligent people have to say to you, or do you skim over it, take out some things you don't agree nor understand and refute them with the same tired and wrong arguments over and over again? I've been following your threads for awhile, and I'm convinced you don't even fully read people's posts--never mind clicking on their links.

You make no effort to understand science. This is a holy war to you, this has nothing to do with science at this point. Not all people are cut out to understand science. For many people, science is too complex for them. You are one of those people. That's normally not a problem, but the fact that you think you understand it makes you an irritating little troll. Give up already.

instead of badmouthing me why don't you explain to me how I am mistaken in my reasoning. I don't want a link....I want a simple explanation. The fact is I have shown you how moths and butterflies -- and all kinds of animals -- have morphologically cryptic abilities. You guys deny this with the peppered moth. But why? Do you honestly think if the peppered moth story would have involved the green moths in my link that the same story of "selection" wouldn't have been told 100 years ago? Get real.

 

[TheGnome]

instead of badmouthing me why don't you explain to me how I am mistaken in my reasoning. I don't want a link....I want a simple explanation. The fact is I have shown you how moths and butterflies -- and all kinds of animals -- have morphologically cryptic abilities. You guys deny this with the peppered moth. But why? Do you honestly think if the peppered moth story would have involved the green moths in my link that the same story of "selection" wouldn't have been told 100 years ago? Get real.

I've learned not to bother getting into a debate with you because you do not listen. There has been several simple, as well as lengthy, explanations why you are wrong, but you either hand wave it as rhetoric, ignore it, or misunderstand it. You haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about, but you have tremendous arrogance that you're right, anyway. It's not use having a debate with someone like you, because you're not here to learn. No wonder why you got banned from infidels.

What I would like to ask you is to stop making numerous threads on the same topic. I don't know why you do this, but I think it has something to do with getting overwhelmed with facts and you cut and run only to make another thread of the same crap as if everyone has forgotten. I think the entire purpose of your threads is for new comers to see them and hopefully get fooled by your lies. You're a dishonest human being--certainly a great creationist.

 

[notto]

I want a simple explanation. T

The color change of peppered moths has an identified, observed, and pinpointed genetic component that has been evidence in the wild and in controlled breeding experiments.

You have ignored this and instead changed the subject because it shows that you are wrong about your claims related to the peppered moths.

Is that simple enough for you?

 

[supersport]

The color change of peppered moths has an identified, observed, and pinpointed genetic component that has been evidence in the wild and in controlled breeding experiments.

You have ignored this and instead changed the subject because it shows that you are wrong about your claims related to the peppered moths.

Is that simple enough for you?

A genetic component? And what triggered that genetic component? -- 1 of billions of nucleotides to activate at just the right moment?

 

[supersport]

Many evolutionists admit that animals only change when the environment changes -- yet this is precisely when plasticity kicks in. However, you evolutionists still claim that it takes thousands/millions of years for animals to "adapt" to their environment....What kind of nonsense thinking is this since you obviously are so in love with plasticity?? -- which can quickly alter shape, color, size, structure, and behaviors of animals? And why is it that animals who don't often change their environments are the very same animals who havent "evolved" in millions of years...ie...crocodiles, sharks, bats, etc?

And don't get confused: heredity -- or lack of it -- has nothing to do with this. We are talking only about FOSSILS that are dug up out of the ground and physical, biolgical change.

So my question is this: if animals only evolve when they experience a change in their environment, and if a change in environment activates an adaptive response (plasticity) in all animals of a population, then what kind of logic makes you believe that it takes thousands/millions of years for populations of animals to "adapt?" If every creature in the population changes its phenotype at the same time in response to an evironmental cue (diet, temperature, predators, etc), this could give the illusion of evolution -- or change -- in the fossil record. This illusion could be attributed to RM + NS by highly-motivated, deceptive atheists who have agendas.

Any and all attempts are welcome by non-scoffers.

 

[notto]

A genetic component? And what triggered that genetic component? -- 1 of billions of nucleotides to activate at just the right moment?

No. Gentics and population dynamics under selection. There were always darker moths in the population (variation within a population). The selection pressure changed and they became more prominant (natural selection). Did you read the link I gave you? It is about as basic of an explaination as can be found for this basic (and observed) evolutionary process). It didn't activate at 'just the right time'. It 'activated' at some time in the past due to random mutation and not until it became beneficial did it become more fixed in the population.

This is an extensively studied and well documented case of natural selection acting on genetic variation within a population.

You really don't think that white moths all the sudden started turning black, did you? You really need to read more if in all your claims of animals changing color you don't even know the basics of this classic case that shows that populations, not individuals evolve.

Regardless. What has been shown is that the color change of the peppered moth certainly was because of this magic (and undocumented, unevidence, and unsupported) property you claim is part of all animals (except apparently the red fox).

 

[notto]

However, you evolutionists still claim that it takes thousands/millions of years for animals to "adapt" to their environment....

Where exactly do we claim this? Please cite a source or quote that says that it takes thousands/millions of years for population to adapt to their environment?

Why do you keep putting forward these strawmen?

As for the rest, you are putting forth fantasy that has never been observed, has no mechansism, and is directly falsified by observation.

We have never seen an animal spontaneously 'adapt' in the way you are suggesting. The adaption is the ability to change with an environment and that adaption evolved through genetic variation in the population acted on by selective pressure. That is why only specific species can do it and not all as you claim. Why only some moths? Why only some foxes? Why only some rabbits? You have been shown the exceptions to your claims repeatadly and you simply handwave.

As for you fossil record claims, are you really suggesting that this plasticity causes bones to bend, entire skeletons to reform, and teeth and wings to spontaneously appear? If so, you really are spouting nonsense.

 

[supersport]

You really don't think that white moths all the sudden started turning black, did you? ..

yes I do.....either that or they emerged that color from their eggs over a period of a few generations.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

In this case, nothing trigered it, but many of the dark (light on the other side) ones got et by boids since they wuz just obvious. Just like you on the wrong side of town. Now, question, do you change color when you cross the tracks?