More feathered dinosaurs

[Christ's_Warrior]

You keep saying that known mechanisms cannot produce new alleles, but the fact of the matter is that they do. This has been documented time and again. I did a search on Google Scholar for you, so feel free to check out the relevant literature:
"new alleles" - Google Scholar
Give this a read, too:
CB102: Mutations adding information
And for what it's worth, the genes that give rise to limbs in birds are the same that give rise to limbs in ALL tetrapods. They're called Hox genes, and they're universal among tetrapods. There's no reason to think things would be any different between birds and non-avian dinosaurs.


Why didn't creationism predict feathered dinosaurs? Because, once upon a time, YECs used to think "kinds" were these immutable groups of organisms that shared little in common. They were thought to be distinct so that features unique to one group would not be found in another. YECs even went so far as to argue that dinosaurs would never be found with feathers (as you yourself still seem to be questioning, judging from your hang-up with regards to "Archaeoraptor").
But now some YECs are coming to accept feathered dinosaurs for what they are. You'd think that would essentially do away with the concept of "kinds" since so many features are continuous across their supposed barriers, but that doesn't seem to be the case. YECs somehow still see this as consistent with the ex nihilo creation of "kinds", which suggests that there's really nothing that creationism doesn't expect to see (i.e., it predicts nothing concerning biodiversity; it is not science).


Microevolution is consistent with both YECism and evolutionary theory, so it cannot be used to distinguish between them, if that's what you're saying. Mind you, if you believe that there were only a few hundred different "kinds" on the ark and that all modern biodiversity radiated from those kinds within just a few thousand years, then you require a lot more than just microevolution to account for it. You'd need some sort of hyperevolutionary mechanism that is not known to operate today.
As for your questions about what science predicts:
1) Not sure what you're referring to about bee hives in the desert. Source?
2) Angiosperm spores have not been found in the pre-Cambrian fossil record. Evolutionary theory would predict that they should not be there. In fact, most creation scientists would be at a loss to explain them, too, given that they believe the Flood sorted organisms in part according to their ecology and angiosperms don't live at the bottom of the ocean. They know modern taxa aren't found in the oldest sediments.
3) No modern-day animal is the same species found in the fossil record. Coelacanths comprise dozens of species, only two of which remain today. And although they have changed relatively little since the Devonian, this is entirely in line with that we know about evolution. Evolutionary theory does not say that all organisms must evolve at the same rate. Some things evolve slowly, some quickly, depending on how quickly the environment changes. Aquatic environments tend to be buffered against the extreme changes seen in terrestrial environments, and so aquatic (particularly marine) fauna don't tend to change all that much if they don't have to.

Anyways, getting back to the point of this thread: Evolution predicted feathered dinosaurs, which are now being found in abundance. We can even determine the colour of the feathers based on the shapes of the preserved melanosomes. It's interesting that YECs are now grudgingly coming to accept that fact.

Anyways, I'm off for a vacation in the DR this weekend, so I likely won't be able to respond for another week or so.

Hi Mallon,

Sorry for all the questions, I am trying to learn a little

When you say (and i read the talk origins link) that new alleles can be produced via mutations, has it been observed that these mutations can create alleles with new information that is beneficial and that could give rise to a new species? (sorry for my ingorance)

What I am trying to say, is there anything that has been observed for e.g. that would produce wings, legs etc? Again please pardon my ignorance.

 

[troodon]

Look at this article from a creation web site where pollens were indeed recovered from the pre-cambrian "Hitaki" shale. More Creationist Research, PART Ia: GEOLOGICAL RESEARCH, What this shows is that life in it's present form has existed from the very start. Angiosperm pollen in the pre-cambrian only serves to proove that.

You don't have the actual article?

 

[Mallon]

Hi Mallon,

Sorry for all the questions, I am trying to learn a little

Can't fault you for wanting to learn!

What I am trying to say, is there anything that has been observed for e.g. that would produce wings, legs etc? Again please pardon my ignorance.

It's important to remember that most evolutionary innovations (like wings or legs) are actually just modifications of already-existing structures. Limbs are really just modified fins -- they contain the same bones and are produced by the same Hox genes. Check out the fins of Eusthenopteron:

They've got a humerus, radius, and ulna just like us!

Ditto bird's wings -- they're just modified forelimbs. And bird feathers are just modified scales, as we're learning from recent feathered dinosaur finds in China that display various stages in the evolution of feathers.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Can't fault you for wanting to learn!


It's important to remember that most evolutionary innovations (like wings or legs) are actually just modifications of already-existing structures. Limbs are really just modified fins -- they contain the same bones and are produced by the same Hox genes. Check out the fins of Eusthenopteron:

They've got a humerus, radius, and ulna just like us!

Ditto bird's wings -- they're just modified forelimbs. And bird feathers are just modified scales, as we're learning from recent feathered dinosaur finds in China that display various stages in the evolution of feathers.

Does that answer your question?

So basically, our hands, fins and wings are sort of the same but have varied according to each species needs? This makes sense, so do we believe then that evolution is random or is it God guided?

When i say God guided, if God knows everything then surely he knew what the final products were going to look like? So are they then really random mutations?

Thanks for putting up with me mate.

 

[Mallon]

So basically, our hands, fins and wings are sort of the same but have varied according to each species needs?

Don't know that I would phrase it quite that way (evolution doesn't respond to the needs of a species), but close enough.

When i say God guided, if God knows everything then surely he knew what the final products were going to look like? So are they then really random mutations?

I would argue that, while evolution appears random to us, it is fully understood by God. After all, He designed the process. The Bible tells us that God is in control even of seemingly random processes, like the rolling of dice.

 

[lucaspa]

When you say (and i read the talk origins link) that new alleles can be produced via mutations, has it been observed that these mutations can create alleles with new information that is beneficial and that could give rise to a new species? (sorry for my ingorance)

What I am trying to say, is there anything that has been observed for e.g. that would produce wings, legs etc? Again please pardon my ignorance.

Oh yes. There are high level developmental genes that control the developmental processes that lead to legs, tails, etc. Remember, wings are simply modified forelegs.

So, let's do some examples. The Manx gene produces tails. In one version of the gene (one allele), no tail. Change an amino acid and voila!, tail!

The Ubx gene controls the development of legs in invertebrates. Specifically, it controls the number of legs. Change just one base in the gene, which changes the coding of that codon from serine to threonine, and you go from the multilegged of centipedes and millipedes to the 6 legs of an insect!

One gene controls the shape of scales. This is one of the bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) family of genes. Reduce its expression (reduce the amount of BMP protein produced), and scales turn into feathers! In this case, the mutation and different allele is in the protein that controls transcription of that particular BMP gene.

Speciation rarely arises from a change in one gene. Rather, the transformation of one species to another involves the accumulation of changes to a number of genes. However, scientists have found a set of genes involved in reproductive isolation, which is necessary for speciation in sexually reproducing organisms. A part of the gene -- called a homeobox -- can rapidly change. When it does, the result is hybrid infertility. 3. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998.

Mutations in genes can also give rise to completely new traits. One well known example is a frame shift mutation in a bacterium that happened to be living in the waste pond of a nylon manufacturing plant. The mutation gave the ability to break down the nylon for food! Suddenly a whole new food source was available:
1. Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Ohno, S, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81:2421-2425, 1984. Frame shift mutation yielded random formation of new protein, was active enzyme nylon linear oligomer hydrolase (degrades nylon) Evolution and INFORMATION - the Nylon Bug!

You also have to remember that some mutations duplicate whole genes. The mistake in copying the DNA is that the gene is copied twice, so now there are 2 copies instead of one. Whole chromosomes can also be duplicated. That gives more DNA. Another mutation is "translocation", where part of a chromosome is detached and added onto another chromosome. Sometimes with duplication and sometimes not. Also, sometimes the attachment is the correct direction and sometimes it is backwards. When it is backwards, whole new proteins are produced because the DNA is read in the reverse order that it was in the original chromosome.

 

[lucaspa]

So basically, our hands, fins and wings are sort of the same but have varied according to each species needs? This makes sense, so do we believe then that evolution is random or is it God guided?

When i say God guided, if God knows everything then surely he knew what the final products were going to look like? So are they then really random mutations?

"Random" in evolution means random with respect to the needs of the individual or the population. In our warming climate, just as many deer with longer fur are born as those with shorter fur. But the shorter-furred deer will do better, on average, in the warmer climate.

When you say "varied according to the species needs" you imply a control over evolution we have not detected. As I noted, variations do not appear in reaction to "need". If that were so, very few species would go extinct. The needed variations would "appear". Instead, individuals vary. Some of thoe variations are more useful in that particular environment than others. The lucky individuals with those variations will do better in the competition for scarce resources, thus leaving more descendents. After several generations, every individual will be descended from that lucky individual and everyone will have that variation.

Does God need to guide evolution? I would argue "no". God can set evolution in motion and sustain it and watch the results. Eventually, as natural selection explores the Library of Mendel (all possible genomes), it will hit upon the wing that contains genomes for creatures capable of communicating with God. The physical shape of those creatures could be anything; they need not be modified apes like us. Since God has no physical shape, what would He care what the physical shape is?

People who want evolution "guided" somehow want God to come up with our physical appearance. I see no need why God would require the creature capable of communicating with Him to be H. sapiens.

Now, evolution is not "random" but it is contingent. The next species depends on the one before. If the first vertebrates had been hexapods instead of tetrapods, the body shapes of all subsequent amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals would have been very different. So no, God would not know ahead of time that H. sapiens was going to be the result of evolution.

However, if God really wanted H. sapiens, there are at least 2 ways that God can guide evolution that are indetectable to us:
1. He can occasionally cause a particular mutation. It can't be that hard for God to direct a cosmic ray to the genome in a sperm so that it reacts with the DNA there to produce a particular variation. With the huge background of non-directed mutations we would never be able to detect this.
2. God could engage in a little artificial selection. God could have a thunderstorm with lightning, or just make lightning bolts, and kill off some of the variations He doesn't want. Again, we can't read the fossil record fine enough to tell if this happened or not.

But I personally, don't think God guided evolution, because I don't think God cared about the physical shape of the creatures that would communicate with Him. IOW, there's nothing special about our physical shape. God could very well be communicating with very different creatures on other planets capable of life in the universe where evolution took a different path from earth's.