nolidad said:
Well as he is an achieved microbiologist with numerous published papers and awards-- I will take his writings over your objection!!
Science doesn't function on the credentials of the scientist, but on the evidence provided. Deal with the evidence.
Or more correctly that they are finally realizing they saw what they wanted to see and after a long process they are finally begrudging admitting archy is a true bird and not a "transition" no matter what was said inthe past.
Please document that scientists are admitting that
Archeopteryx is not a transitional. I know of no paleontologist or biologist who does not consider it a transitional form. Calling it "bird" does not make it non-transitional.
The truth is all we have are about 7 fossil remains fo archy.
More than we have of most fossil species.
The onlyh thing we can conclusivey prove is that archy had some distinct and unique features to no other bird we know of ...
...but which are found in therapod dinosaurs. It is worth noting that one of those seven (which was not found with feathers) was originally classified as a dinosaur and only recognized many years later as an
Archeopteryx.
( oops so don't peacocks, and emus and penguins and ostriches, and cardinals)
Whatever special characteristics these birds have, they share the characteristics of modern birds. Unlike
Archeopteryx, all of them have avian characteristics--both those
Archeopteryx has and those that
Archeopteryx does not have.
We really do ont know how reptilian those reptilian features are as we cannot do DNA research on archy or any of its ancesotrs.
Not only do we know how reptilian they are, we have pinned down the specific family of dinosaurs they came from: therapods.
If you must the evolution we reject is the "macro" type that declares that life evolved through randopm chaotic mutation and natural selection so that from simple single cell life forms-- all present life derives.
A statement that shows you do not understand micro-evolution. You may believe it happens, but you don't understand how it happens.
Unless you can demonstrate a mechanism which stops the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes at a certain point, macro-evolution is inevitable.
Once you understand (not just believe) micro-evolution, this will be self-evident.
No problem. Science does not deal in proof. It deals in evidence.
Speciation is never ruled out int he bible, for speciation is simply reproducing a variuant with in the kind (genera or family)
As it happens, this is also consistent with evolution. Every new species is a variant of the species it evolved from. Darwin described evolution as "descent with modification". And he stood firm on the point that all modifications are small.
It is not possible to get a new species that is at the same time a new genus or family.
Evolution requires the nonevolved parent species to vanish
Not necessarily. A lot of new species form, not from the whole population of the ancestal species, but from an isolated sub-population which has, perhaps, moved into a different ecological environment. If this sub-population, in adapting to its new environment, becomes a new species, the original population may continue in the old environment alongside it.
So, for example, the evolution of finches who found themselves on the Galapagos Islands did not threaten the continued existence of the parent species on the coast of South America.
That is what we keep asking you to prove!! And prove it inevitable.
First, in science, evidence is used to support a thesis. Science goes with the preponderance of evidence, even if it is less than absolute proof.
Evolution as outlined is a process that has been observed. Mutation has been observed. Selection has been observed. Speciation has been observed. Observation generally counts as very strong evidence.
It is inevitable as long as the conditions exist for the process to continue.
The necessary conditions are:
a) mutations
b) reproduction rates that outstrip available resources resulting in a competition for resources and/or changing environmental systems which require different adaptations e.g. to new food sources
c) differential reproductive rates which favour the better exploitation of the current environment and/or better adaptation to a changed environment.
Show me a situation in which these conditions are absent, and you have shown me a situation in which evolution is not inevitable.
So do you hold to punctuated equilibria as Gould does?
Pretty much every paleontologist now agrees that punctuated equilibrium explains some characteristics of the fossil record--but not all.
Of course, most creationists have invented their own strawman version of what punctuated equilibrium is--supposing it to be an alternative to neo-darwinian evolution.
But He didn't He told us HOW He brought life to the planet so that is that!!
Evolution is not about how life was brought to the planet. It is about how that life diversified over generations once it already existed on the planet.
Looking at this would only show that higher intelligence with a design and plan in mind did experimentation.
Of course, human minds designed the experiments and carried them out. The important thing is to look at the results of the experiments.
Then you really need to download the condensed RATE paper--you will be stunned at what they proved empirically about what can change decay rates!!!
I don't have a problem with the possibility that decay rates can be changed. What I want to know are the circumstances under which they can be changed. It is not enough to show, for example, that pressure can change a decay rate. The crucial question is "How much pressure does it take?" And the next question is "How much does the decay rate change under such-and-such amount of pressure?"
Then show rep[tile to bird and austrolopithecus to homo sapien!
There are plenty of sites showing both. Take two seconds to google each.
Really!!! As of the turn of the century we had less than 2,000 fossil remnants of the supposed ascent of man from austrolopithecus. That is alot??
Yes, it is a lot. Passenger pigeons became extinct in living memory. There were huge numbers of them as recently as the early 1900s. How many skeletons of passenger pigeons have been found? In the short period of time from the 1870s to 1912 the huge buffalo herds of the American plains were reduced from millions to just 4 animals. Most corpses were skinned for trophies and that carcases left to rot. How many skeletons have been found?
Fossilization is an extremely rare occurrence and even rarer on land than in marine environments. To have 2,000 remnants of the late stages of human evolution is amazing good fortune.
And many of it is simply partial skull or a tibia or fibia.
Did you know that it was an ardent creationist who developed the techniques for reconstructing whole skeletons from a few bones? He insisted that a good anatomist could deduce the rest of the skeleton from the available evidence.
Did you know for example that the skull is a key piece of evidence for whether or not a primate walked upright?
We have very very few skeletons showing the ascent.
Evolution is change, not ascent.
2. Gluadys said enviormental pressures do not cause mutations but culls out to keep the advantageous ones--so we have a conflict on this thread.
You misinterpret me. I actually did mention that intense environmental pressure has been shown to speed up the mutation rate. In this sense it can be said that the environment "causes" mutations to happen. What it does not cause is the appearance of a specific mutation. I am sure random_guy agrees with this.
3. What caused the mutation? randomness, error in replication? or an attack on the host species and th eimmune system responding in kind to defend the species??
What causes a mutation doesn't make it not a mutation. And randomness does not "cause" mutations. It is a description of when, where and what mutations occur. Every mutation has a cause. It is when, where and what the effect will be that cannot be predicted. And because they are unpredictable, they are called "random".
Well we do know bacteria have their own unique life styles compared to other life, but if it happens so repeatedly why isn't it documented extensively.
I haven't referenced mutation rates in bacteria, but I am sure PubMed may have some info on them. There is considerable documentation of mutation rates in humans, especially those that have deleterious effects. Choose your favorite genetically-produced disease or deformity, and you will quickly find out how often the mutation shows up in the human population.
In fact, mark kennedy once posted a site where you can get a list of mutations that occur on the human 22nd chromosome and the diseases/deformities they cause.
Read the cites and there are numerous loose ends to these./quote]
What you asked for was a list of mutations. You got that.
Once again we know mutations occur but what effect are these overall?
For that you will have to go to the original research. I only responded to the demand for a list.
What caused the mutation??
In most cases it would not be possible to trace the cause.
Was it random or induced??
How would you tell the difference? We can note that the relevant DNA sequence is different in the mutant than in the normal population, but the changed DNA carries no label that says "I was induced by..." or "God made me change".
so in other words all these phylogenic charts are just hogwash and guesses?? Are you saying then what we creationists have been saying--that no one really has a clue as to how evolution took place histoircally???
Quite the contrary. My point is that you cannot predict the history of evolution from the process of evolution (and the theory is about the process, not the specific history.)
But you can investigate the evidence to find out what the history was. The phylogeny is based on concrete evidence, not theory.
And if it was just avbout speciation then we could all close the thread and say amen. We know speciation occurs within genera. But we have never observed no gathered the empirical evidence that one genera was transformed to another genera through speciation!
It is about speciation and only about speciation. Speciation is the end-point of the evolutionary process. The only thing that can happen once a new species emerges is for that new species to evolve to the point that it also speciates. Repeat, and repeat, and repeat. That is the entire story of evolution.
The reason we have no empirical data of one genus transforming into another is because that never happens. That is what the Dawkins quote in my signature means. Evolution jumps no gap, not even the one from one genus to another.
But fossils are not observing evolution.
Who ever said they were?
NOr are nested hierarchies proof of evolution.
Didn't claim they were. I said they are one of the most powerful supporting sets of evidence for evolution.
There are other valid scientific explanations for why there are "nested" hierarchies.
Such as?
So we are in a family that also includes fish!! so aren't many other animals but we are genetically related to them we are a different genus and species.
Being in a different genus or species doesn't mean being unrelated. That is analogous to saying you are related to your first cousins, but not to your third cousins. We are related to every creature--even trout--more or less distantly. Just as you are related (through Adam) to every one of the 6 billion humans on this planet(and all their ancestors and all the descendants they will have) more or less distantly.
We did not spring from the sarcopterygians.
The evidence says otherwise.
ICR, CRS, AIG, and all other YEC would disagree,
They disagree on principle. They don't provide scientific falsification.
Well I do not know the bugs scientific name but it still retained that name and genetic identity, just a new species of that same bug.
Its
Flavobacterium KI72. It retains the same generic name as its ancestor (
Flavobacterium sp.), but was given a new species designation. This is true of
all new species, because
all new species are part of the same genus as the ancestral species.
All new species are new species of the "same bug" or salamandor or gull or whatever.
So then we should not be surpriseds that bacteria auto adapt to their enviornments as is predicted by Scripture!
Ah, so scripture predicts evolution! Can you give me the reference?
Or it could have been the result of some unknown virus or disease that changed the genome so it could reproduce itself.
Whatever the cause it is still a mutation. That is what a change in the genome is--a mutation.
The fact that some in this family are born without the mutation shows that the human genome seeks to right the imbalance and not allow the mutation to continue.
No, it shows random assortment of genes during meiosis as explained in Mendelian genetics.
What disadvanteges does this cause while endowing - a speed and climbing advantage!
As I said above, you asked for a list. You got it. You want more information on specific mutations go to the original scientific study.
