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.
Maybe that's just a neutral mutation? Not every trait has to be beneficial for a current organism. Many will be the result of simple history (like our own appendix and toes).JohnR7 said:Ok, so what is the evolutionary benifit to wrinkled peas? Why would natural selection select them?
JohnR7 said:Ever hear of a syrian hampster?MrGoodBytes said:Ever heard of a thing called sickle cell anemia?
Yes I heard of sickle cell. It has been highly researched. It is what they call a evolutionary trade off. If someone inherits one gene from one parent then they will have some resistance to malaria. But if they inherit the gene from both the parents then they will die from sickle cell.
So how can you demonstrate that some sort of a defective gene in the hampsters is causing the different color fur to appear? Just when in the last 50 years do you feel this genetic "defect" first occured?
No we don't just assume that a mutation was responsible for sickle cell anemia or some coat colors in Syrian hamsters....JohnR7 said:I am wondering, why do you think that this was caused by a mutation? Because it can be "good" & "bad" or because you do not find it in everyone.MewtwoX said:This example also serves to illustrate the ambiguity in defining certain mutations as "good" or "bad". Good in one place can be bad in another...
Or do you call it a mutation because you have a control group and you can demonstrate where a copy error first took place and the sickle cell first appeared?
Or do you just assume a mutation created the gene? (Bold/color added)
ABSTRACT
In the course of analysis of ENU-induced mutations in Syrian hamsters, a novel dominant anophthalmic white mutant (WhV203) with hearing loss was recovered. Because of this phenotype and a close linkage to the Tpi gene, the Mitf gene was considered as a candidate gene. In the Mitf cDNA, a deletion of 76 bp covering the entire exon 7 was detected. Further molecular analysis revealed a T A exchange 16 bp upstream of the end of intron 6, leading to skipping of exon 7. These 16 bp at the end of intron 6 are identical in hamster, rat, mouse, and humans, indicating high conservation during evolution and a functional importance in splicing. Since the loss of exon 7 changes the open reading frame of the MITF transcript, translation will be stopped after 10 new amino acids. The truncated protein is predicted to contain only a part of the basic region and will miss the two helical domains and the leucine zipper. The WhV203 mutation in the Syrian hamster affects the same functional domains of the Mitf transcription factor as the human R124X mutation, causing human Waardenburg syndrome type II. Therefore, the WhV203 hamster mutant provides a novel model for this particular syndrome.
INTRODUCTION
SINCE the discovery of the mouse microphthalmia (Mi) mutation more than 50 years ago (HERTWIG 1942 ), numerous mutant alleles have been identified and genetically characterized. The mutations affect particular cell types, which are derived from neural-crest melanocytes. The size of the mutant eyes is reduced because of the affected retinal pigmented epithelium. The mutants frequently develop deafness owing to the lack of inner ear melanocytes. The mutations detected in the mouse are mainly recessive, but semidominant or dominant phenotypes also have been reported. The wild-type allele encodes a basic-helix-loop-helix leucine zipper (bHLHzip) transcription factor and has been referred to as microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (mitf; STEINGRIMSSON et al. 1994 ; YAJIMA et al. 1999 ; HALLSSON et al. 2000 ; THAUNG et al. 2002 ).
. . . .
In the Syrian hamster, one dominant mutation in Mitf (W241X) has been reported and designated as anophthalmic white (Wh). It is predicted that this premature stop codon leads to a truncation of the protein in the loop between helix 1 and helix 2 of the bHLHzip region. It prevents the protein from dimerizing or from binding to its DNA target sites (HODGKINSON et al. 1998 ).
In this article, we describe a novel dominant allele (WhV203) in the Syrian hamster. The phenotype cosegregates with a point mutation in a highly conserved region of intron 6. It leads to skipping of exon 7 of the Mitf gene during the maturation of the transcript.
LightHorseman said:Dear Gladiatrix, I'm serious, I have a ring and everything, say you'll be mine?
supersport said:But I would appreciate it if you would quite calling me a liar and stop using your typical childish, foul-mouthed athest language. Save it for your wife and kids. I don't want to hear it.
Euh, read some of supersports earlier threads. Read them completely and tell me again afterwards, with a straight face. that it is the evolutionists who don't follow reason.Tynan said:amen !
My point was that they will not yield to reason.
Quoted for truth.Tynan said:This is like showing a child how nutritionally poor a diet based entirely around sucrose, glucose and the colourant Yellow No.6 (Sunset Yellow FCF) would be for their well being, regardless, after they have heard all the facts they will still want to eat that bright yellow sugary ball in the shape of a clown because their drive was never based on reason but on desire.
You are not discussing evolution, you are trying to take something precious away from these people.
Schroeder said:the problem is if you layed out ALL the species 3000 or so of them they never change into anything BUT a different species of trilobite. and i would guess that is the same for MOST ALL oganisms.
And as you say if you did not have a continual fossil record you would say was not part of the other, as in the evolution of whales, BUT of course that doesnt stiop them one bit here does it. they show four or five species that they say is from a origanal species that evolved into a whale. I wonder what it would look like if they had ALL the species of each so called transitional what the picture would show. BUT again they NEVER do this. They ALWAYS so happen to find JUST enough to come to a conclusion.
Sorry but this reasoning doesnt fit at all. It is clear Trilobites DID NOT change into anything BUT trilobites. it is CLEAR chimps apes monkey NEVER became anything BUT monkeys chimps and apes. it is clear alligators did not change into anything BUT another type of alligator. SO for this theory to work there would had to have been a creation of many types of animals that changed into what we have know. as in many different origanals with genes capable of creating the many SPECIES we have today. BUT they never were just ONE organism at one time in the past. animals from the SEA did not become anuimals of the land and animal of the land did not become birds. So you are right the MANY different animals created did not become a different type animal, like a fish to a amphibian to a reptile to a mammal ect. But the many diofferent first became the many SPECIESThis is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts. Descent with modifiction means that you will never be anything different than what your ancestors are, just modified. Look at the fossils found in the human and chimp lineages. All of them are modifications of their ancestors, and all of them in both lineages are modified Hominidae and modified primates. They are never anything but primates. Modern day protists and mammals are still just eukaryotes.
Species do not change into something else, they just add variety to their ancesteral group.
NOT when there is no proof of a common descent in the first place. It is rather hard to FALSIFY something that is not there. and you can show me all your so called evidence but it is still the same as your common descent picture it isnt there. It is rather obvious if a creature did create life he would use ALL the same types of mechanism to survive. and YES they would be very similiar to each other, WHY because they all live on the same planet with the same LAWS to follow. you are telling us to find something WE know we will not find. Just admit the whale evolution presented is very poor. the only reason it is held on is becasue mammals should not be in water UNLESS they came from land, because that is the way the theory flows.The fossil record is incomplete so we will always have an incomplete picture of past evolutionary events. However, even an incomplete picture is capable of falsifying common descent. For example, a fossil species with a mix of avian and mammalian features not found in the common ancestor (reptiles) would falsify the theory of evolution. It is that simple. That they find a gradation of features between modern whales and modern ungulates. Of course, both whales and ungulates are both still mammals so neither turned into anything different.
Yes, it does.Sorry but this reasoning doesnt fit at all.
I'll leave trilobites, as I do not have any knowledge on them.It is clear Trilobites DID NOT change into anything BUT trilobites.
Chimps are apes. They are modifications of ancestral apes.it is CLEAR chimps apes monkey NEVER became anything BUT monkeys chimps and apes.
Again, we wouldn't expect them to. However, alligators have come from an ancestor which was not an alligator. Not from scratch, but as a modification of this ancestor.it is clear alligators did not change into anything BUT another type of alligator.
Yes, they did. The bodyplan of animals of the land is a modification of the bodyplan of the original animals from the sea. The bodyplan of birds is a modification of the bodyplan of dinosaurs. The bodyplan of bats is a modification of the bodyplan of mammals. They are all modifications, nothing new.SO for this theory to work there would had to have been a creation of many types of animals that changed into what we have know. as in many different origanals with genes capable of creating the many SPECIES we have today. BUT they never were just ONE organism at one time in the past. animals from the SEA did not become anuimals of the land and animal of the land did not become birds.
That sentence does not make sense. Could you please first calm down before typing and check your grammar? Your posts are extremely hard to follow.So you are right the MANY different animals created did not become a different type animal, like a fish to a amphibian to a reptile to a mammal ect. But the many diofferent first became the many SPECIES
But there is. Plenty of it.NOT when there is no proof of a common descent in the first place.
Like special creations.It is rather hard to FALSIFY something that is not there.
How can we show it if it isn't there?and you can show me all your so called evidence but it is still the same as your common descent picture it isnt there.
But why do birds and bats have wings developed in a completely different way if what you say is true? Why do the blood circulations of mammals and birds differ, while they have to accomplish the same? That doesn't make sense from the perspective of a single designer.It is rather obvious if a creature did create life he would use ALL the same types of mechanism to survive. and YES they would be very similiar to each other, WHY because they all live on the same planet with the same LAWS to follow. you are telling us to find something WE know we will not find.
Why would we. It isn't. It's extremely good and detailed.Just admit the whale evolution presented is very poor.
No, the reason it is held is that it adds up, not only when looking at the fossils in a broad perspective, but also when taking an extremely detailed look. Add to that the molecular and embryological evidence, and the picture becomes even more persuasive.the only reason it is held on is becasue mammals should not be in water UNLESS they came from land, because that is the way the theory flows.
So you are right the MANY different animals created did not become a different type animal, like a fish to a amphibian to a reptile to a mammal ect. But the many diofferent first became the many SPECIES
Dude, the changing between the major families of animals (reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, for example) only happened a scant few times over hundreds of millions of years. Of course we don't expect to see these things happen in our miniscule lifetimes. And yet, we do see animals alive today that seem to be between these things, such as the lungfish:Sorry but this reasoning doesnt fit at all. It is clear Trilobites DID NOT change into anything BUT trilobites. it is CLEAR chimps apes monkey NEVER became anything BUT monkeys chimps and apes. it is clear alligators did not change into anything BUT another type of alligator. SO for this theory to work there would had to have been a creation of many types of animals that changed into what we have know. as in many different origanals with genes capable of creating the many SPECIES we have today. BUT they never were just ONE organism at one time in the past. animals from the SEA did not become anuimals of the land and animal of the land did not become birds. So you are right the MANY different animals created did not become a different type animal, like a fish to a amphibian to a reptile to a mammal ect. But the many diofferent first became the many SPECIES
It is clear Trilobites DID NOT change into anything BUT trilobites.
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?