Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The whole idea of descent with modification is pretty much based on gain of function mutations cropping up, being selected and passed on.
Sorry, but all of the scientific evidence in the world says that is not what happened.
Science has no evidence contradicting Genesis.
Science can take a hike.It has plenty. You don't like it, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists.
I don't think you understand what "gain of function" means...At any rate, a true "gain of function" mutation is what evolution requires.
Nice try equivocating Christians with creationists.That is an example of the kind of evolution that any Christian would agree with. It is not an example to help your idea of evolution.
No, those changes actually aren't as complex as you think. Blood vessels, muscles, nerves etc. are to a large degree guided by their environment. Change the shape of a limb bone, and the musculature and innervation will change with it, because muscles organise themselves around bones and peripheral nerves grow wherever there is tissue to be innervated.Complex changes meaning re-routing blood vessels, ligaments, tendons...
What do you mean by this?bypassing whole embryo body plans, etc.
When did God create microraptorines or Archaeopteryx?God created birds and bats on day five, fully formed and able to fly.
It doesn't lose the ability to sense pain. The mutation only changes the way Na+ channels react to a specific substance. I think you'll agree that most pain stimuli aren't scorpion venom.It's debatable because the mouse LOSES the ability to sense pain. In case there's a fire for example, loss of a pain reflex is bad.
One. Speciation is an observed and well-documented phenomenon. Two. Speciation does not equal large change. See any number of species you can only tell apart by looking at their genitals under the microscope or sequencing their DNA.So I'm not misunderstood, species adapt and there are beneficial mutations. It's just as Eternal Dragon pointed out, variation within a species and variation to a species are two different things.
Now I really don't think you understand what a gain of function mutation is. It does not mean "beneficial" or "increasing complexity".The whole idea of descent with modification is pretty much based on gain of function mutations cropping up, being selected and passed on.
"All evolution requires is change" =/= "no new traits ever have to appear".Without gaining the function of nerve cells, osteoblasts, immune systems, eyes, ears, etc, all life would still basically be bacteria if all that was required was change. Reducing the issue to simply requiring "change", grossly oversimplifies what actually constitutes function and regulation within the cell.
You are confusing scientists conclusions with actual evidence again.
Science has no evidence contradicting Genesis.
You seem to have no idea what evidence there is out there (or more likely are purposely ignoring it).
You mean what "conclusions" are out there. I am well aware of the available evidence.
No, you are not. For example, the order in which animals and plants appear in the fossil record is evidence, not a conclusion, and that evidence completely refutes the order in Genesis. There is plenty of evidence that the earth was created after the sun, contrarily to what Genesis says. I could go on and on, but I am sure you are not interested.
When did God create microraptorines or Archaeopteryx?
This is a fantasy evolution strawman. No one believes that evolution occurs by bypassing whole embryo body plans.The example is a mutation of a protein. Not a series of mutations resulting in say wings on a rat. Which would take a lot more complex changes to happen and is the kind of evolution I assume you believe in.
Complex changes meaning re-routing blood vessels, ligaments, tendons, bypassing whole embryo body plans, etc.
Your assertion. Strange that the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs did not require any "re-routing blood vessels, ligaments, tendons, bypassing whole embryo body plans," though.No, it has not happened. You believe it happened.
God created birds and bats on day five, fully formed and able to fly.
God's creation is amazing! Bears have noses that are resistant to bee stings. We should be thankful that evolution is a created trait, even if it does work slow in this present age.This one goes for those who don't "believe" in beneficial mutations, a mutation gives grasshopper mice resistance to scorpion venom, allowing them to eat scorpions.
Mouse eats scorpions
But maybe this is just another loss, right? The mutation made them lose the ability to die from poisoning?
Again you demonstrate that you know nothing about evolution. Descent of modification has nothing to do with gain of function. The only thing required by evolution is change (i.e. modification).
Well then you should be able to classify this mutation, is it a gain of function mutation or no?I don't think you understand what "gain of function" means...
It doesn't lose the ability to sense pain. The mutation only changes the way Na+ channels react to a specific substance. I think you'll agree that most pain stimuli aren't scorpion venom.
One. Speciation is an observed and well-documented phenomenon. Two. Speciation does not equal large change. See any number of species you can only tell apart by looking at their genitals under the microscope or sequencing their DNA.
Perhaps "species" is not what you mean.
Now I really don't think you understand what a gain of function mutation is. It does not mean "beneficial" or "increasing complexity".
"All evolution requires is change" =/= "no new traits ever have to appear".
But caterpillars can turn into butterflies and tadpoles can turn into frogs?No one believes that a chimp turned into a human.
But caterpillars can turn into butterflies and tadpoles can turn into frogs?
No one believes that a chimp turned into a human. And the only people claiming that the TOE says they did are the people trying to make the TOE look ridiculous. In logic, that tactic is called the Strawman Fallacy. In Economics and politics it is known as Bait and Switch. And it is considered to be dishonest and heinous in any situation.
The evidence on which scientific accounts of human evolution is based comes from many fields of natural science. The main sources of knowledge about the evolutionary process has traditionally been the fossil record, but since the development of genetics beginning in the 1970 s DNA analyses has come to occupy a place of comparable importance. The studies of ontogeny, phylogeny and especially evolutionary developmental biology of both vertebrates and invertebrates offer considerable insight into the evolution of all life, including how humans evolved. The specific study of the origin and life of humans is anthropology, particularly paleoanthropology which focuses on the study of human prehistory.[61]
Genetic evidence has also been employed to resolve the question of whether there was any gene flow between early modern humans and Neanderthals, and to enhance our understanding of the early human migration patterns and splitting dates. By comparing the parts of the genome that are not under natural selection and which therefore accumulate mutations at a fairly steady rate, it is possible to reconstruct a genetic tree incorporating the entire human species since the last shared ancestor.
Each time a certain mutation (Single nucleotide polymorphism) appears in an individual and is passed on to his or her descendants a haplogroup is formed including all of the descendants of the individual who will also carry that mutation. By comparing mitochondrial DNA which is inherited only from the mother, geneticists have concluded that the last female common ancestor whose genetic marker is found in all modern humans, the so-called mitochondrial Eve, must have lived around 200,000 years ago.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?