This is for all the Evolutionists

[JedPerkins]

Jed...do you believe that it requires an accidental mutation to change fur color?

No. Regulating gene expression can change it. This has been pointed out/admitted before. The general coat color of a population is likely to be influenced by mutation in the related genes over time (note: these genes could be incredibly varied and not even necessarily the ones we would expect, given how complex the chemical interactions are in multi-cellular organims).

 

[supersport]

No. Regulating gene expression can change it. This has been pointed out/admitted before. The general coat color of a population is likely to be influenced by mutation in the related genes over time (note: these genes could be incredibly varied and not even necessarily the ones we would expect, given how complex the chemical interactions are in multi-cellular organims).

Jed....you are straddling the fence....

Does coat color require a random mutation or not? If not, then is it possible that a whole population can change coat color at the same time?

 

[supersport]

do you believe this jed?:

All organisms have adaptations that help them survive and thrive. Some adaptations are structural. Structural adaptations are physical features of an organism like the bill on a bird or the fur on a bear. Other adaptations are behavioral. Behavioral adaptations are the things organisms do to survive. For example, bird calls and migration are behavioral adaptations.


Adaptations are the result of evolution. Evolution is a change in a species over long periods of time. Adaptations usually occur because a gene mutates or changes by accident! Some mutations can help an animal or plant survive better than others in the species without the mutation.

http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/nwep1.htm

 

[JedPerkins]

Jed....you are straddling the fence....

I'm not straddling the fence.

Does coat color require a random mutation or not?

Well, in the sense of "getting to the point where there are animals complex enough to have coats required a whole series of random mutations", yes. I don't think that is the way you intended the question, what I think you intended was more like "Does a specific genetic makeup determine coat color, and is mutation required to change that coat color?"

No, as I said, variation in gene expression can alter coat color in an individual.

If not, then is it possible that a whole population can change coat color at the same time?

Indeed it is. If the whole population has the same general mechanism (so no mutants that effect coat color in the population) for controlling coat color based on environmental factors, and the whole population is subject to the same (or adequately similar) environmental factors. I'm sure you are going to misinterpret something in here as going against evolution: I assure you, it doesn't.

 

[supersport]

I'm not straddling the fence.



Well, in the sense of "getting to the point where there are animals complex enough to have coats required a whole series of random mutations", yes. I don't think that is the way you intended the question, what I think you intended was more like "Does a specific genetic makeup determine coat color, and is mutation required to change that coat color?"

No, as I said, variation in gene expression can alter coat color in an individual.



Indeed it is. If the whole population has the same general mechanism (so no mutants that effect coat color in the population) for controlling coat color based on environmental factors, and the whole population is subject to the same (or adequately similar) environmental factors. I'm sure you are going to misinterpret something in here as going against evolution: I assure you, it doesn't.

Well Jed...my gosh....you simply cannot have it both ways. If every animal changes rapidly as a result of an environmental change, then why in the world would it have to wait on a random mutation to spread through the population over thousands of years? That makes no sense.

You can still be an atheist...just don't blame it on Toe.

 

[JedPerkins]

do you believe this jed?:

All organisms have adaptations that help them survive and thrive. Some adaptations are structural. Structural adaptations are physical features of an organism like the bill on a bird or the fur on a bear. Other adaptations are behavioral. Behavioral adaptations are the things organisms do to survive. For example, bird calls and migration are behavioral adaptations.


Adaptations are the result of evolution. Evolution is a change in a species over long periods of time. Adaptations usually occur because a gene mutates or changes by accident! Some mutations can help an animal or plant survive better than others in the species without the mutation.

http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/nwep1.htm

Yes. I do believe I addressed the difference between the general adaptations that occur over time, and the resulting adaptability of organisms. You seem to want adaptation to only be applicable in one sense, but it isn't.

 

[supersport]

Yes. I do believe I addressed the difference between the general adaptations that occur over time, and the resulting adaptability of organisms. You seem to want adaptation to only be applicable in one sense, but it isn't.

Jed...the web page said that fur color requires a random mutation...you, however said differently. So which is it?

 

[JedPerkins]

Well Jed...my gosh....you simply cannot have it both ways. If every animal changes rapidly as a result of an environmental change, then why in the world would it have to wait on a random mutation to spread through the population over thousands of years? That makes no sense.

You can still be an atheist...just don't blame it on Toe.

I'm not having it both ways. I'm having it the way it makes sense. Please see the portion of your quote I have kindly bolded for you. I never asserted that at all. In fact, even in the animals that can change rapidly as a result of environmental change, the extent to which they can change is limited (by their genetic makeup). Random mutation can alter that range of individual adaptability.

I have never "blamed" my atheism on ToE. What do you blame your ignorance on?

 

[Tomk80]

hey...why is it so hard for you guys to believe that coat color can change quickly when it's known that probably only one gene (or a few genes) are involved in pigmentation/fur color?

Nobody said it would not change quickly. If it happened, however, it would not happen to the individual red fox we put in the arctic, but in it's offspring if that offspring had the right mutation. That's how genetics works. Larger changes will take a longer time even, but you are talking about at least one generation. Probably, although I can't say for sure, it would take longer then one generation (even more probably, the red fox would just stand out too much and quickly be polar bear food), as gaining the ability of color changing would probably be harder then loosing it.

In the blue fox (which is the same as the arctic fox, except for the color changing) color changing doesn't happen. And the reason it doesn't happen in this fox, as pointed out in the article, is because there is a mutation in the genome of that fox. Now, this change from ability to inability will have occurred quickly, yes. However, it would not immediately have been present in the entire population. First one fox has it, then when it succeeds in reproducing more foxes get this characteristic. It was the result of a random mutation, however. So whatever the speed, one thing follows from this evidence:

The inability to change color is the result of a change in the genetic code.

 

[JedPerkins]

Jed...the web page said that fur color requires a random mutation...you, however said differently. So which is it?

I suggest you reread the page. It didn't say that.

 

[Tomk80]

Well Jed...my gosh....you simply cannot have it both ways. If every animal changes rapidly as a result of an environmental change, then why in the world would it have to wait on a random mutation to spread through the population over thousands of years? That makes no sense.

You can still be an atheist...just don't blame it on Toe.

Because it has to gain that adaptive ability first, before it can use it.

 

[supersport]

I'm not having it both ways. I'm having it the way it makes sense. Please see the portion of your quote I have kindly bolded for you. I never asserted that at all. In fact, even in the animals that can change rapidly as a result of environmental change, the extent to which they can change is limited (by their genetic makeup). Random mutation can alter that range of individual adaptability.

I have never "blamed" my atheism on ToE. What do you blame your ignorance on?

Well you're right...it is limited....I do not deny that....however adaptations don't need to be huge in order for the animals to survive -- coat color, beak size, fin color/texture, jaw/beak structure, teeth etc.

but what I'm getting at is the mechanism that you are proposing for macro-evolution is not a legit mechanism for micro-evolution...thus your theory is worthless.

 

[supersport]

Because it has to gain that adaptive ability first, before it can use it.

I agree....

I say God gave them that ability...you say random mutations did it.

Regardless, though, "adaptation" through population is unnecessary.

besides...you obviously don't remember my post where I proved that DNA is not THE carrier of genetic information. Specific genes are merely tools the body chooses to use.

 

[JedPerkins]

Well you're right...it is limited....I do not deny that....however adaptations don't need to be huge in order for the animals to survive -- coat color, beak size, fin color/texture, jaw/beak structure, teeth etc.

but what I'm getting at is the mechanism that you are proposing for macro-evolution is not a legit mechanism for micro-evolution...thus your theory is worthless.

You haven't actually shown that. You keep claiming you have, but then people here show you that you are wrong (often with your own evidence). Thus... the theory of evolution is not worthless (at least certainly not based on your claims).

 

[Tomk80]

I agree....

I say God gave them that ability...you say random mutations did it.

So will you now stop with statements like:

Well Jed...my gosh....you simply cannot have it both ways. If every animal changes rapidly as a result of an environmental change, then why in the world would it have to wait on a random mutation to spread through the population over thousands of years? That makes no sense.

Above you have stated that you understand that animals needs to gain that ability first. You just do not accept the mechanism for that, but you agree that this would be necessary. So you can stop asking questions on which you already know the answer.

Regardless, though, "adaptation" through population is unnecessary.

You yourself have already given the point where it is necessary, so I have no idea why you keep claiming this.

edited to add some more

 

[Opethian]

Supersport, here is your problem:

You think that a change of phenotype through an adaptability that an organism possesses is somehow a new genetic characteristic that this animal acquires during the adaptation. Yet, the adaptibility is an innate ability of an animal that is the result of the expression of its static genome, that contains all the information for this adaptibility. Organisms have a limited amount of adaptibilities that can be expressed through their DNA, and they will never gain new adaptibilities, unless mutations cause them to acquire new ones through evolution. If an organism shows an adaptibility it has not shown before to researchers, it has always been present in the organism, in its genome, but has never been triggered before by the right environmental conditions. Because that's what causes the adaptibility: chemical processes going on in the organisms body because of environmental stimuli it receives. Organisms have acquired these adaptibilities through evolution: random mutations combined with natural selection by living in varied, changing environments that cause the evolving of an adaptibility to favor the mutant population that evolves this adaptibility. What you do not understand is that when a creature adapts (for example a fox changes fur during a change of seasons), its DNA does not change. The adaptibility is inherent in its static DNA. The adaptability is an ability that has always been present in the organism, but is only expressed when the organism receives the right environmental stimuli. It is limited in each organism, because of their static DNA. Only evolution, thus the changing of their DNA, can cause them to gain new adaptibilities. Your "theory" presents absolutely no problem for evolution, because without evolution, organisms can acquire no new adaptibilities at all, and are left with the limited array of adaptibilities that they already possess, which may hinder their survival if the environment changes too drastically.

Checkmate.

 

[supersport]

well I gotta go...thanks for the chat.

 

[supersport]

Supersport, here is your problem:

You think that an adaptibility that an organism possesses is somehow a new characteristic that this animal acquires during the adaption. Yet, the adaptibility is an innate ability of an animal that is the result of the expression of its static genome, that contains all the information for this adaptibility. Organisms have a limited amount of adaptibilities that can be expressed through their DNA, and they will never gain new adaptibilities, unless mutations cause them to acquire new ones through evolution. If an organism shows an adaptibility it has not shown before to researchers, it has always been present in the organism, in its genome, but has never been triggered before by the right environmental conditions. Because that's what causes the adaptibility: chemical processes going on in the organisms body because of environmental stimuli it receives. Organisms have acquired these adaptibilities through evolution: random mutations combined with natural selection by living in varied, changing environments that cause the evolving of an adaptibility to favor the mutant population that evolves this adaptibility. What you do not understand is that when a creature adapts (for example a fox changes fur during a change of seasons), its DNA does not change. The adaptibility is inherent in its static DNA. The adaptability is an ability that has always been present in the organism, but is only expressed when the organism receives the right environmental stimuli. It is limited in each organism, because of their static DNA. Only evolution, thus the changing of their DNA, can cause them to gain new adaptibilities. Your "theory" presents absolutely no problem for evolution, because without evolution, organisms can acquire no new adaptibilities at all, and are left with the limited array of adaptibilities that they already possess, which may hinder their survival if the environment changes too drastically.

Checkmate.

Strawman on your first statement...I never said that...nor would I say that.

 

[supersport]

the fact is that you guys claim that a change in fur color/etc requires a mutation, yet you do NOT admit that the environment can induce a mutation.

Checkmate.

bye

 

[Opethian]

Strawman on your first statement...I never said that...nor would I say that.

It is the only view that you could hold that could give your "theory" some kind of basis, because otherwise you are contradicting yourself in your idea. If the adapting doesn't cause any change in the organisms DNA, it doesn't cause any genetic change at all in the organism, and thus any adaptations are not inherited in coming generations, which leaves you with nothing less than a belief in the incredibly faulty Lamarkism, which is the primitive theory preceding Darwin's theory, which is a bit laughable to uphold in the current time.