It is possible to adapt to your environment, in a way that returns with the next generation

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So yes, I have finally busted the whole stranglehold that Evolution has put on our sense of inheritance. For almost a couple centuries (since Darwin), we have had the idea that inheritance is something that only operates within the originating generation (the father passes "evolution" on to the son and the son is unable to change it, but passes it on himself, if he lives). The power of this idea, is that change is required of us, even before we are able to have known how to change (the change) appropriately. The new model, however, is that Evolution can be passed down to the next generation, in a way that is not biologically active, but rather inert - allowing the subsequent generation to pass the adaptive traits on in a new way (or not at all) and allowing the preceding generation to return to the species in a future generation.

It literally is possible to postpone Evolution, for longer and longer periods - leading to the greater viability of the species (as it is no longer dependent on the individual expression of what the species stands for, from one generation to the next only).

So for example, you could have a young giraffe with the potential to maximize its adolescent growth spurt to reach higher than giraffes normally reach and if it eats well this way it will survive - however he may not acknowledge with God that the extra height is a good thing: thus making the value of a greater height ambiguous to the mate he wins as an adult (such that the mate does not consciously select for the greater height). His children then, will continue to inherit the strengths of their ancestors, but without sense of progression to greater height (concluding as they may do that greater height is not safe).

On the other hand, this same giraffe could take advantage of his growth spurt and develop greater height, but then limit the full expression of that growth spurt, to emphasis the size of the head. When it comes to mating then, this giraffe will have limited his attractiveness in terms of height, while his overall survivability has increased - he then may determine in his heart, that if he should return a giraffe of this species again, he will take advantage of his adolescent growth spurt even more than he had in this life. The point being, that he is spreading his survivability across multiple generations. His son may be wary of developing too great a head for that height, but welcoming his father back to the species, will see that confidence in taking advantage of a adolescent growth spurt leads to greater survivability. The return of a progenitor to the species, creates a trait which survives death.

This can be expanded to "returns" across species, which anticipated means that there are numerous traits, that can be stored up for future generations to take advantage of. For example a giraffe could leave out adaptive traits for finding water and be reborn in a hippopotamus that only even lives in water, thus leaving open the possibility of a hippopotamus that survives going without enough water, for longer periods of time. The essential point is that the hippopotami are open to inheriting something from the previous generation of giraffe: there is no need for a species to isolate their Evolution, to a single species, single trait or a single survivability - a promisingly hard saying.

All that is required for this phenomenon to take effect, is for the adapted traits already gained by a species, to be loosely interpreted, such that other traits and evolutions be able to piggyback. All that is required for this phenomenon to breach the gap between species, is for a given species to remain open to its survival extending to greater unknowns in relations to other species. You cannot gain a return with more traits or to other species, if you believe your Evolution,, is currently "special".

 

[Brightmoon]

That environmental stress can affect gene expression of the next generation is a fact . That’s called epigenesis not evolution. However the ability to have alternative modes of gene expression in response to the environment, evolved within each species

I wish creationists understood biology , heck I wish everyone understood biology. It’s fascinating!

 

[The Barbarian]

So yes, I have finally busted the whole stranglehold that Evolution has put on our sense of inheritance.

You've re-invented Lamarckism; he even used the giraffe example, which is a crock, since giraffes don't normally browse at the highest levels. Lamarckism fell apart when the mechanisms of heredity were discovered.

Epigenetics allows a limited and temporary non-genetic way to affect the next generation,but it's not the way evolution normally works.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"It is possible to adapt to your environment, in a way that returns with the next generation "

Of course the banks have adapted, and the government agencies, and the corporations, all to get more money every generation.

 

[-57]

Hi there,

So yes, I have finally busted the whole stranglehold that Evolution has put on our sense of inheritance. For almost a couple centuries (since Darwin), we have had the idea that inheritance is something that only operates within the originating generation (the father passes "evolution" on to the son and the son is unable to change it, but passes it on himself, if he lives). The power of this idea, is that change is required of us, even before we are able to have known how to change (the change) appropriately. The new model, however, is that Evolution can be passed down to the next generation, in a way that is not biologically active, but rather inert - allowing the subsequent generation to pass the adaptive traits on in a new way (or not at all) and allowing the preceding generation to return to the species in a future generation.

It literally is possible to postpone Evolution, for longer and longer periods - leading to the greater viability of the species (as it is no longer dependent on the individual expression of what the species stands for, from one generation to the next only).

So for example, you could have a young giraffe with the potential to maximize its adolescent growth spurt to reach higher than giraffes normally reach and if it eats well this way it will survive - however he may not acknowledge with God that the extra height is a good thing: thus making the value of a greater height ambiguous to the mate he wins as an adult (such that the mate does not consciously select for the greater height). His children then, will continue to inherit the strengths of their ancestors, but without sense of progression to greater height (concluding as they may do that greater height is not safe).

On the other hand, this same giraffe could take advantage of his growth spurt and develop greater height, but then limit the full expression of that growth spurt, to emphasis the size of the head. When it comes to mating then, this giraffe will have limited his attractiveness in terms of height, while his overall survivability has increased - he then may determine in his heart, that if he should return a giraffe of this species again, he will take advantage of his adolescent growth spurt even more than he had in this life. The point being, that he is spreading his survivability across multiple generations. His son may be wary of developing too great a head for that height, but welcoming his father back to the species, will see that confidence in taking advantage of a adolescent growth spurt leads to greater survivability. The return of a progenitor to the species, creates a trait which survives death.

This can be expanded to "returns" across species, which anticipated means that there are numerous traits, that can be stored up for future generations to take advantage of. For example a giraffe could leave out adaptive traits for finding water and be reborn in a hippopotamus that only even lives in water, thus leaving open the possibility of a hippopotamus that survives going without enough water, for longer periods of time. The essential point is that the hippopotami are open to inheriting something from the previous generation of giraffe: there is no need for a species to isolate their Evolution, to a single species, single trait or a single survivability - a promisingly hard saying.

All that is required for this phenomenon to take effect, is for the adapted traits already gained by a species, to be loosely interpreted, such that other traits and evolutions be able to piggyback. All that is required for this phenomenon to breach the gap between species, is for a given species to remain open to its survival extending to greater unknowns in relations to other species. You cannot gain a return with more traits or to other species, if you believe your Evolution,, is currently "special".

I see two ways to look at this issue of evolution. There is what is called micro-evolution or as some may want to call it ...horizontal.
The descent with modification sect wants to speak of macro-evolutionism or what some call verical evolutionism.

In the first there is no new genetic code evolving but merely only the mixing of the already established genetic pool.

In the second there is mutations that over time create or improve on what is called a trait. New genetic material is required for this type of evolutionism.

The animals speciating from an original kind on the ark would adapt to a particular environment via the first method.

The second method remains impossible with no ability to demonstrate how macro-evolutionism can possibly work.
From which of the two mentioned above are you addressing?

 

[Brightmoon]

As you’ve been told repeatedly, kinds or baramin type of speciation ( ex the cat kind ) is actually macroevolution . Those animals form several different genera including Felis, Panthera and Neofelis. There are many different species in Felis and Panthera . Macroevolution is speciation and the many different species group in different genera.

You keep misusing that term !

 

[The Barbarian]

As you’ve been told repeatedly, kinds or baramin type of speciation ( ex the cat kind ) is actually macroevolution .

Yep. Most creationist organizations have come to admit common descent to include species, genera, families, and sometimes to orders. If they retreat just a little farther, we won't have anything to argue about.

 

[stevevw]

Hi there,

So yes, I have finally busted the whole stranglehold that Evolution has put on our sense of inheritance. For almost a couple centuries (since Darwin), we have had the idea that inheritance is something that only operates within the originating generation (the father passes "evolution" on to the son and the son is unable to change it, but passes it on himself, if he lives). The power of this idea, is that change is required of us, even before we are able to have known how to change (the change) appropriately. The new model, however, is that Evolution can be passed down to the next generation, in a way that is not biologically active, but rather inert - allowing the subsequent generation to pass the adaptive traits on in a new way (or not at all) and allowing the preceding generation to return to the species in a future generation.

It literally is possible to postpone Evolution, for longer and longer periods - leading to the greater viability of the species (as it is no longer dependent on the individual expression of what the species stands for, from one generation to the next only).

So for example, you could have a young giraffe with the potential to maximize its adolescent growth spurt to reach higher than giraffes normally reach and if it eats well this way it will survive - however he may not acknowledge with God that the extra height is a good thing: thus making the value of a greater height ambiguous to the mate he wins as an adult (such that the mate does not consciously select for the greater height). His children then, will continue to inherit the strengths of their ancestors, but without sense of progression to greater height (concluding as they may do that greater height is not safe).

On the other hand, this same giraffe could take advantage of his growth spurt and develop greater height, but then limit the full expression of that growth spurt, to emphasis the size of the head. When it comes to mating then, this giraffe will have limited his attractiveness in terms of height, while his overall survivability has increased - he then may determine in his heart, that if he should return a giraffe of this species again, he will take advantage of his adolescent growth spurt even more than he had in this life. The point being, that he is spreading his survivability across multiple generations. His son may be wary of developing too great a head for that height, but welcoming his father back to the species, will see that confidence in taking advantage of a adolescent growth spurt leads to greater survivability. The return of a progenitor to the species, creates a trait which survives death.

This can be expanded to "returns" across species, which anticipated means that there are numerous traits, that can be stored up for future generations to take advantage of. For example a giraffe could leave out adaptive traits for finding water and be reborn in a hippopotamus that only even lives in water, thus leaving open the possibility of a hippopotamus that survives going without enough water, for longer periods of time. The essential point is that the hippopotami are open to inheriting something from the previous generation of giraffe: there is no need for a species to isolate their Evolution, to a single species, single trait or a single survivability - a promisingly hard saying.

All that is required for this phenomenon to take effect, is for the adapted traits already gained by a species, to be loosely interpreted, such that other traits and evolutions be able to piggyback. All that is required for this phenomenon to breach the gap between species, is for a given species to remain open to its survival extending to greater unknowns in relations to other species. You cannot gain a return with more traits or to other species, if you believe your Evolution,, is currently "special".

I think you are describing how living things are more interactive with each other and their environments giving and receiving feedback which can influence their evolution and environments. They are not just independent passive actors but are part of an organic ecosystem that is connected and grows together.

Creatures have a say in what happens and humans are the ultimate example. We are directing evolution and affecting the outcomes. We can change an environment and not just have to be changed to fit into the environment. But so can other creatures as we know they are smart enough to do so. Evolution is also affected by social and cultural interactions that put people in better positions to adapt where cooperation and certain cultural traditions can cause better health outcomes.

Environmental pressures affect bodies which can influence gene expression for future generations. There is a degree of plasticity in our genomes where living things can activate existing genetic info to adapt. But also they can be affected by their environments and other living creatures through HGT. So a living organism in a new environment is not just an independent entity hoping to mutate the right variations to fit in and survive but can also evolve beneficial and well integrated phenotype changes from internal and external influences and processes.

This ensures beneficial changes because they come from other living things and environments that are already in the same area. In this sense evolution is not just about predator and prey or survive or else but is cooperative. It is more directed rather than a random and blind process as with the standard theory.

 

[-57]

Yep. Most creationist organizations have come to admit common descent to include species, genera, families, and sometimes to orders. If they retreat just a little farther, we won't have anything to argue about.

Most creationist?

Creationist agree on speciation as that is what is required to produce the different species that descended from the original ark kinds. Typically for that to occur there is a mixing of genetics that adapts to a particular biome. Another method would be the removal of genetic information in an adapting species.

...but to claim macro-evolutionism by most creationist just isn't correct as they all understand that random rare beneficial mutatuions can't increase the genetic information to the point that new genera, families and orders are created.

 

[The Barbarian]

Most creationist?

Most creationist organizations. They really don't have much of a choice, since they can't hope to make their literal revision of the Ark story work, unless new species, genera, and families evolve. Would you like me to show you that?

Creationist agree on speciation as that is what is required to produce the different species that descended from the original ark kinds.

Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research show their idea of kinds to be something like orders, allowing for common descent of species, genera,and families.

Typically for that to occur there is a mixing of genetics that adapts to a particular biome.

No, that's wrong. It requires mutations and new alleles, in most cases.

...but to claim macro-evolutionism by most creationist just isn't correct

Sorry, that's wrong. I realize that they don't call it "evolution", but as you have learned, that's what it is. Remember the scientific definition of evolution.

as they all understand that random rare beneficial mutatuions can't increase the genetic information

No, that's wrong, too. As I showed you earlier, every new mutation in a population increases information. Would you like to see the numbers, again?

to the point that new genera, families and orders are created.

That's is what the ICR and AiG admit. Would you like me to show you that?

 

[-57]

Most creationist organizations. They really don't have much of a choice, since they can't hope to make their literal revision of the Ark story work, unless new species, genera, and families evolve. Would you like me to show you that?

Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research show their idea of kinds to be something like orders, allowing for common descent of species, genera,and families.

If kinds were something like orders......the species then came from the orders.
Evolutionism has species evolving and creating new orders. Do you understand that Barbarian?

No, that's wrong. It requires mutations and new alleles, in most cases.

When animals breed approximately 50% of the genetic information comes from the father and approximately 50% comes from the mother. As everyone but you undertands when you mix a Labrador with a Poodle you get a labradoodle. Much information is lost when the two dogs are bred. No mutations are required.

Sorry, that's wrong. I realize that they don't call it "evolution", but as you have learned, that's what it is. Remember the scientific definition of evolution.

Only in a sense "evolution" means change.

No, that's wrong, too. As I showed you earlier, every new mutation in a population increases information. Would you like to see the numbers, again?

if I type this....the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs...and change it to....the quick brown fox jumped over the l@zy dogs...you would claim the information is increased, which would be wrong. If I kept changing out letters and rearranging words to the point you can't make any sense out of the sentence....you would still claim the informaton was increased.

But, yes, I would love to see how you twist the numbers.

That's is what the ICR and AiG admit. Would you like me to show you that?

Absolutly, show me.

But as I said above....
If kinds were something like orders......the species then came from the orders.
Evolutionism has species evolving and creating new orders. Do you understand that Barbarian?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research show their idea of kinds to be something like orders, allowing for common descent of species, genera,and families.

If kinds were something like orders......the species then came from the orders.

No, that's not what it is. It's like you have a street address (species), a town (genus), and a state (family). The nation would be the order. America is not a house. There are houses in towns, in states, in America. And there are species, in genera, in families, in orders.

Evolutionism

"Evolutionism" is a creationist idea, kind of sum of all the misconceptions creationists have about biology.

When animals breed approximately 50% of the genetic information comes from the father and approximately 50% comes from the mother.

No. The amount of information in each genome differs. You would be accurate if you said that each parent contributes about 50% of the genes of a new individual. This goes back you your confusion about what "information" means in science.

As everyone but you undertands when you mix a Labrador with a Poodle you get a labradoodle. Much information is lost when the two dogs are bred.

Nope. But let's see your calculations. As you learned a while back, it's the number and relative frequency of alleles in a population that determines the information. Do I have to show you, again?

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, that's wrong. I realize that they don't call it "evolution", but as you have learned, that's what it is. Remember the scientific definition of evolution.

Only in a sense "evolution" means change.

No, that's wrong. In biology, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Write it down, this time.

if I type this....the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs...and change it to....the quick brown fox jumped over the l@zy dogs...you would claim the information is increased,

No, that's wrong. You removed information and added it. So no change. Remember, evolution and information in a species only applies to a population. Do you remember the formula for information?

If I kept changing out letters and rearranging words to the point you can't make any sense out of the sentence....you would still claim the informaton was increased.

No, you still don't get it.

The formula for information is:

where H is the information, and p(x) is the frequency of allele x in the population. If you sum the product of each frequency and the log of each frequency, and multiply by -1, you get the information.

Let's take a population with two alleles for a certain gene, each with a frequency of 0.5. Suppose a mutation happens and eventually the three alleles have a frequency each of about 0.3333.

The first case, the information for that gene would be about 0.301. In the second case, the information is about 0.478.

If there's only one allele for that gene, the information is zero. That's because if every allele in the population is the same, knowing what that allele is in any particular case will give you exactly zero information.

Until you can get your head around this, information will continue to be a mystery for you.

If kinds were something like orders......

The Bible uses "kinds" for all sorts of things, it's such a flexible concept. For example, it says birds and bats are of the same kind.

Evolutionism...

...is a creationist idea, kind of sum of all the misconceptions creationists have about biology.

 

[-57]

Barbarian observes:
Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research show their idea of kinds to be something like orders, allowing for common descent of species, genera,and families.

If you look at an evo tree of life you see new orders evolving. Evos like to change dino's into birds.
The YEC's say dinos already existed as well as birds.
The variations of birds and dinos only specitated. You seem to be having trouble understanding this simple issue.

The Bible uses "kinds" for all sorts of things, it's such a flexible concept. For example, it says birds and bats are of the same kind.

They were simply grouping certain flying animals.

As to H..information, information has to be defined. Perhaps you're including useless information.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research show their idea of kinds to be something like orders, allowing for common descent of species, genera,and families.

If you look at an evo tree of life you see new orders evolving.

New domains, kingdoms, phyla, and classes, too. As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise notes, that's what the evidence indicates. Creationists almost always draw the line at new orders or less. They admit some common descent, but not all of it.

Evos like to change dino's into birds.

One of them did. God is an evo. As Dr. Wise says, the evidence says that He used evolution to do it.

The YEC's say dinos already existed as well as birds.

The problem for them,is that there were dinosaurs before there were birds, and thecodonts before there were dinosaurs.

And of course, as Wise says, the large number of transitional forms, at the right time.

The variations of birds and dinos only specitated.

Some scientists agree with you, arguing that birds are dinosaurs. Most scientists think they speciated sufficiently to be considered two different groups. You seem to be having trouble understanding this simple issue.

Barbarian notes that the Bible puts bats and birds into the Bird Kind.

They were simply grouping certain flying animals.

Yes. The Biblical concept of "kind" is not about biology, but about function. Hence, not applicable to biology.

As to H..information, information has to be defined.

It's a measure of uncertainty in a message before it's read. Or in another context, the smallest amount of data needed to accurately represent the message. You might not like that definition, but it allows us to accurately receive very weak radio messages across billions of kilometers of space, and to have an internet.

Perhaps you're including useless information.

Information does not involve an evaluation of utility. Perhaps you should find a different word to describe whatever it is you're thinking of. The English language already has a technical definition for "information."

 

[-57]

Barbarian observes:
Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research show their idea of kinds to be something like orders, allowing for common descent of species, genera,and families.

Some people just never learn. After the KINDS left the ark...that bible believing Barbarian denies ever happened....the animals speciated after their kind.
Barbarian wants to make it sound like Creation research organizations believe species evolved to create new kinds.

Oh well, what can I say.

 

[The Barbarian]

Some people just never learn. After the KINDS left the ark...that bible believing Barbarian denies ever happened....

You aren't a very careful thinker. You might want to go back and see if you can find that I denied the flood or an Ark. It's why you make so many errors here.

the animals speciated after their kind.

Speciation is the way new kinds of organisms evolve.

Barbarian wants to make it sound like Creation research organizations believe species evolved to create new kinds.

They don't consider new genera and families to be new kinds. Which by that determination, means humans and chimpanzees are the same kind.

Oh well, what can I say.

Not much you can say. You're between a rock and a hard place.

 

[-57]

You aren't a very careful thinker. You might want to go back and see if you can find that I denied the flood or an Ark. It's why you make so many errors here.

perhaps I should have said world wide flood.

Speciation is the way new kinds of organisms evolve.

now you're playing with the word kind.

They don't consider new genera and families to be new kinds. Which by that determination, means humans and chimpanzees are the same kind.

are you saying God used the rib of a chimp to form women?

 

[The Barbarian]

perhaps I should have said world wide flood.

The Bible doesn't say it was world-wide.

now you're playing with the word kind.

The Bible says bats and birds are the "bird kind." That means "kind" is equivalent to "phylum." No matter how you try, it won't work.

Creationist organizations don't consider new genera and families to be new kinds. Which by that determination, means humans and chimpanzees are the same kind.

are you saying God used the rib of a chimp to form women?

I'm saying that creationist organizations don't consider genera and families to be new kinds. Which by that determination means humans and chimpanzees are the same kind. And that's why they keep trying to change the subject when people start examining their claims.

 

[-57]

The Bible doesn't say it was world-wide.

In the bible God says it was world wide.

But then again you think uninspired man wrote the bible.

The Bible says bats and birds are the "bird kind." That means "kind" is equivalent to "phylum." No matter how you try, it won't work.

Do I really have to explain to you wht a wing is?

Creationist organizations don't consider new genera and families to be new kinds. Which by that determination, means humans and chimpanzees are the same kind.

If you can't understand the very simple concept....I suppose you'll never will.

I'm saying that creationist organizations don't consider genera and families to be new kinds. Which by that determination means humans and chimpanzees are the same kind. And that's why they keep trying to change the subject when people start examining their claims.

There is no such thing as a new kind.

 

[The Barbarian]

In the bible God says it was world wide.

Nope. That's just man's adjustment to God's word. But then again you think men are allowed to adjust the bible.

Barbarian observes:
The Bible says bats and birds are the "bird kind." That means "kind" is equivalent to "phylum." No matter how you try, it won't work.

Do I really have to explain to you wht a wing is?

You're surprised to learn that bats and birds are classified as being in a single "kind" in the Bible. You see, "kind" was defined functionally, not biologically. But since the creationist position is that all organisms of a single kind are descended from an original species, they have extended common descent to species, genera, families, and classes.

It is your system, not mine, remember.

There is no such thing as a new kind.

That belief is apparently why creationists think bats and birds had a common ancestor.