Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

[MarkT]

Tom

Yes, but humans still do not have 'wing' genes. Seriously, they just don't have them. We don't have a lot of other genes to. But, if you want to keep up that we do have them, you might want to show me the research papers of the researchers that discovered them.

Why not Tom, if they occur naturally?

According to your logic, there must be all kinds of genes in the sequence just waiting to be expressed at the right time and under the right conditions for evolution, as you understand it, to occur.

Do they suddenly become active?

 

[MarkT]

Tom

Actually, no. We have a pretty good idea on what determines whether a particular gene is going to be active. It's not determined by the soul, not by 'life' (whatever you may mean by that). It's other genes and certain chemicals which do the trick. We do not know everything about how it works, but we have come a pretty long way in the last 30 years or so.

I don't think you have any idea. And what you think isn't true.

Of course you would believe anything if it was "proven."

Still taking Vioxx and Celebrex?

 

[Tomk80]

Tom



I don't think you have any idea. And what you think isn't true.

Of course you would believe anything if it was "proven."

Still taking Vioxx and Celebrex?

I'll ask you again. Have you ever studied genetics, and if so, to what level? I think you have less of an idea than I have.

And again, study up on the scientific method. Science does not 'prove' anything.

 

[MarkT]

Tom

edit: Please answer me this truthfully. Have you ever studied genetics, and if you have, how much of it have you studied. Because from the above post I'd say know next to nothing about it.

You have to give me something substantial to work on Tom.

How can I challenge your postion if all you do is refer back to your teachers?

Your teachers could be wrong.

So tells us what you're refering to. I never said we did have the genes for wings. I used wings as an example.

Wings are characters that allow us to classify things.

 

[Tomk80]

Tom



Why not Tom, if they occur naturally?

According to your logic, there must be all kinds of genes in the sequence just waiting to be expressed at the right time and under the right conditions for evolution, as you understand it, to occur.

Do they suddenly become active?

According to my logic, we have different genes than birds have. At the time when the lineages which would give rise to birds and mammals split, neither had the genes for wings present. Than, the bird-lineage over time developed genes for feathers and fusing of bones to become wings. Mammals over time developed genes for hairs and maintained their four legs. So we have different genes, not all kinds of genes waiting to be expressed. I would really want to press here that you really should study a bit of genetics and biology first before you want to venture any further.

 

[MarkT]

Tom

And again, study up on the scientific method. Science does not 'prove' anything.

I know. You can only prove something isn't true.

 

[Tomk80]

Tom



You have to give me something substantial to work on Tom.

How can I challenge your postion if all you do is refer back to your teachers?

Your teachers could be wrong.

So tells us what you're refering to. I never said we did have the genes for wings. I used wings as an example.

Wings are characters that allow us to classify things.

I am not referring to my teachers Mark. I am trying to see what your basis in genetics is. So again, have you ever studied genetics and if you have, how much of it?

 

[Tomk80]

I know. You can only prove something isn't true.

Not even. We can only say whether an observation is in agreement or disagreement with a certain hypothesis. The hypothesis is derived (mostly) from the theory.

 

[MarkT]

Tom

Than, the bird-lineage over time developed genes for feathers and fusing of bones to become wings. Mammals over time developed genes for hairs and maintained their four legs.

Well that's speculation which depends on your interpretation of the evidence.

So the bird lineage developed wings? There's no evidence of that.

As I said, you appear to be saying they sprouted wings.

But if the common ancestor didn't have the genes for wings to begin with, then where did they come from and how did this ancestor which was defined by nature to exist without wings suddenly take on a whole new appearance?

And why would we not see evidence of character development in nature?

As I said, for a character to develop, the whole sequence would have to change.

However in nature, an animal is defined by the sequence. Nature seems to act according to a plan whereby the proper genes are passed on and activated.

Some variation is possible. When breeding occurs in isolation, we see species develop because not all of the gene pool is represented.

 

[Tomk80]

Tom

Well that's speculation which depends on your interpretation of the evidence.

It is based on the evidence, yes. It is however, much more than speculation.

So the bird lineage developed wings? There's no evidence of that.

Well, pretty hard to fly without them, isn't it?

As I said, you appear to be saying they sprouted wings.

I am not saying that. To be more specific, I say that over a long period of time the front paws (as well as many other characteristics) of the ancestors of birds began to modify into wings. This only required a modification of the basic reptilian bodyplan, which would have happened slowly over time. We have a number of examples of animals living before birds which have a body-plan intermediate between that of birds and dinosaurs.
The most famous of these is of course, archeopteryx. However, it is not the only one. Based on archeopteryx a number of other finds was predicted, and eventually found in China.

But if the common ancestor didn't have the genes for wings to begin with, then where did they come from and how did this ancestor which was defined by nature to exist without wings suddenly take on a whole new appearance?

Again, it did not suddenly take on a new appearance. Populations of bird-ancestors slowly developed these characteristics over a long period of time. The mechanism is mutation + natural selection. Mutations alter the genetic sequence, natural selection makes sure that those that are beneficial are preserved while those that are not are weeded out of the population. These mutations slowly add up, slowly giving rise to a new species.

And why would we not see evidence of character development in nature?

We do, for example in the large class of therapsids (mammal-like reptiles), which give a good view on the development of a large number of mammalian traits.
From fossils like archeopteryx we know a lot of the development of avian traits like feathers, wings and muscle attachment.

As I said, for a character to develop, the whole sequence would have to change.

And it can do so slowly over time by the accumulation of neutral and beneficial mutations.

However in nature, an animal is defined by the sequence. Nature seems to act according to a plan whereby the proper genes are passed on and activated.

Natural selection makes sure of that.

Some variation is possible. When breeding occurs in isolation, we see species develop because not all of the gene pool is represented.

A lot of variation is possible. As of yet, I have not yet seen a creationist who could actually give me a good reason why it would stop somewhere. Maybe you will be the first?

 

[gladiatrix]

Actually, no. We have a pretty good idea on what determines whether a particular gene is going to be active. It's not determined by the soul, not by 'life' (whatever you may mean by that). It's other genes and certain chemicals which do the trick. We do not know everything about how it works, but we have come a pretty long way in the last 30 years or so.

I don't think you have any idea. And what you think isn't true.

Actually it is quite apparent that it is you who doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. Tom is right, we have discovered quite a lot about how genes are expressed in the past 30 years. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with just the basics at the sites below (expression is different for the two basic types of cells, prokaryotic cells vs eukaryotic cells).

Control of Gene Expression

The Paradigm of Differential Gene Expression

This is an extraordinarily complex subject so it isn't possible to even begin to explain gene regulation here. There is more to consider about gene regulation than simply looking at genes that are actively transcribed (used to make proteins, RNAs). The whole genome is actually "tagged" with certain chemical "cues" that directly affect that expression. Here's an interesting article on that:

The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk

EXCERPT
The extent of this unseen genome is not yet clear, but at least two layers of information exist outside the traditionally recognized genes. [....]Above and beyond the DNA sequence there is another, much more malleable, layer of information in the chromosomes. "Epigenetic" marks, embedded in a melange of proteins and chemicals that surround, support and stick to DNA, operate through cryptic codes and mysterious machinery. Unlike genes, epigenetic marks are routinely laid down, erased and rewritten on the fly. So whereas mutations last a lifetime, epigenetic mistakes-implicated in a growing list of birth defects, cancers and other diseases-may be reversible with drugs. In fact, doctors are already testing such experimental treatments on leukemia patients.

What most people don't realize is that inheritance/gene expression is not just a case of "me Gene", "you Protein". The DNA is packaged and "tagged" with a number of proteins and chemicals that directely effect how these genes are expressed. Some of these "tags" are often sex-specific, i.e., males and females will have often methylate (add a CH[size=-2]3[/size] "tag") the same alleles for a trait differently which will directly affect their expression. This kind of epigentic marking is called genomic imprinting.

What was previously called "junk DNA (JD)" may not be junk after all and also appears to play a role in gene expression.The question is not that "junk DNA" isn't "useful", but HOW useful is it .....

The phrase "junk DNA"(JD) was coined to describe all DNA that did not code for proteins or RNAs used by the host. This phrase is proving to be something of a MISnomer. It DOES NOT necessarily mean "flawed DNA". While this DNA may not code for host proteins and RNAs, it does appear that it may indeed have a number of "functions" within the cell.

• 1. JD acts as a regulator of gene expression during development (Ex. embryogenesis)
• 2. JD may serve as enhancers for the transcription of nearby genes.
• 3. Acting as a "double-edged" genetic regulator, JD can also function as "silencers" (in contrast to enhancers that up-regulate transcription) for suppression the transciption of proximal genes.
• 4. JD may play a role in regulating translation of proteins

Just "WHAT" is "junk DNA"? It is composed of:

• 1. Introns (For an interesting twist on how introns can be "used" read about Inteins or "protein introns")
• 2. Pseudogenes
• 3. Nearly half of this "junk" DNA is parasitic or "selfish" DNA. These mobile elements are DNA sequences that possess coding sequences that facilitate their ability to copy and/or transfer themselves to different regions of the hosts genome. These mobile element specific sequences doesn't code for host proteins that will ever become part of the host tissue or perform a cellular function.
  • a. Transposable elements(TEs)
  • b. Retrotransposons/retroposons.
  • c. More detailed descriptions of the mobile elements go HERE and HERE

These pseudogenes and mobile elements (which also acquire mutations) accumulate over time and have characteristic patterns that can be used to trace lineages. Depending on where mobile elements "land" (become incorporated into the host's DNA), this can also directly affect gene expression if their incorporation results in a mutation that either stops gene transcription or inadvertently turns a gene "on" that should be turned "off".

Now I haven't even scratched the surface about what is currently known about gene expression, so for you to for what is in all intents and purposes call Tom a liar ("I don't think you have any idea. And what you think isn't true") is totally without justification.

Of course you would believe anything if it was "proven."

Still taking Vioxx and Celebrex?

[sarcasm]
You mean that drug companies have actually rushed drugs onto the market without adequate testing in pursuit of the almighty dollar? Really?? Color me totally caught by surprise at this astounding revelation!
[/sarcasm]

I do believe you were asking about gene expression, so why do you now attempt to move the goal post and evade Tom's questions by bringing up these drugs? This makes me think you have no adequate response to Tom's questions.

Most drugs that get past the rigorous screening are safe. But the law of probability is always going to dictate that a few harmful ones are going to get into the system for no other reason that even if drug companies/scientists exercise the proper due diligence, mistakes will be made. What you have done is only underscored one of the strengths of science, it is ultimately self-correcting. Many overlook the FACT that all legitimate science is verified many times over, by many qualified people (nothing can make a scientific career faster than discovering an error in a previously accepted proposition). For that reason (continual scrutiny and investigation) science is a self-correcting process. Self-correction actually makes science stronger and is "proof of the pudding" that science is trustworthy. For this reason, massive self-corrections ("Oh, I guess there are no such things as atoms... back to the drawing board"--Vegan Charity) are RARE things (that goes for harmful drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex).

 

[Tomk80]

[sarcasm]
You mean that drug companies have actually rushed drugs onto the market without adequate testing in pursuit of the almighty dollar? Really?? Color me totally caught by surprise at this astounding revelation!
[/sarcasm]

I do believe you were asking about gene expression, so why do you now attempt to move the goal post and evade Tom's questions by bringing up these drugs? This makes me think you have no adequate response to Tom's questions.

Most drugs that get past the rigorous screening are safe. But the law of probability is always going to dictate that a few harmful ones are going to get into the system for no other reason that even if drug companies/scientists exercise the proper due diligence, mistakes will be made. What you have done is only underscored one of the strengths of science, it is ultimately self-correcting. Many overlook the FACT that all legitimate science is verified many times over, by many qualified people (nothing can make a scientific career faster than discovering an error in a previously accepted proposition). For that reason (continual scrutiny and investigation) science is a self-correcting process. Self-correction actually makes science stronger and is "proof of the pudding" that science is trustworthy. For this reason, massive self-corrections ("Oh, I guess there are no such things as atoms... back to the drawing board"--Vegan Charity) are RARE things (that goes for harmful drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex).

From what I could gather on Vioxx and Celebrex, the mechanism causing the deaths was an inhibition of the inflammatory mechanism. Tests for side effects of this were not prescribed by the FDA, so the medicin could pass FDA testing without problems. As has been the case in the past and will be the case in the future, pharmacological companies will not run every test they can imagine on a drug, and only errors will point out to us which tests are necessary.

Now, all I could find on the mechanism of the deaths was that it blocked prostaglandin formation. Prostaglandin is part of a chain that leads to inflammation.
According to this site: "Vioxx is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that inhibits cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). The COX-2 enzyme controls the conversion of arachidonic acid into prostaglandin E2, a hormone that produces inflammation."

Which makes it an inhibitor of an enzyme. It could do this two ways. First, by inhibiting the expression of the gene for the enzyme, which would prove Mark wrong. Second by inhibiting the workings of the enzyme, which would make the medicins completely irrelevant to gene expression.

This is the reason I asked Mark multiple times whether he had any basics in genetics. Till now, his posts as well as his refusal to answer the question lead me to believe he does not have any knowledge on genetics whatsoever.

 

[gladiatrix]

From what I could gather on Vioxx and Celebrex, the mechanism causing the deaths was an inhibition of the inflammatory mechanism. Tests for side effects of this were not prescribed by the FDA, so the medicin could pass FDA testing without problems. As has been the case in the past and will be the case in the future, pharmacological companies will not run every test they can imagine on a drug, and only errors will point out to us which tests are necessary.

Now, all I could find on the mechanism of the deaths was that it blocked prostaglandin formation. Prostaglandin is part of a chain that leads to inflammation.
According to this site: "Vioxx is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that inhibits cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). The COX-2 enzyme controls the conversion of arachidonic acid into prostaglandin E2, a hormone that produces inflammation."

Which makes it an inhibitor of an enzyme. It could do this two ways. First, by inhibiting the expression of the gene for the enzyme, which would prove Mark wrong. Second by inhibiting the workings of the enzyme, which would make the medicins completely irrelevant to gene expression.

This is the reason I asked Mark multiple times whether he had any basics in genetics. Till now, his posts as well as his refusal to answer the question lead me to believe he does not have any knowledge on genetics whatsoever.

Thanks for the information. Like I said, mistakes will be made, even if people do exercise due diligence, simply because we don't know what questions to ask or know all of the questions that need to be asked. The problems with these drugs may actually have the "silver lining" in that the problems experienced by some of the users more clearly illustrates the questions that might have been asked. I'll bet the next time these companies test anti-inflammatories like these, they do ask "the question", regardless of whether the FDA mandates the tests or not. They would be fools if they don't and such a thing happens again. I was just kidding about the money angle (I do hope those companies did exercise due diligence and this mistake wasn't the result of greed). My intention was to underscore with sarcasm what seem to me to be an evasion of your questions by Mark's attempt to bring up another topic (Vioxx, Celebrex were "proven" safe, so all scientific "proof" should be suspect because of these gaffs, i.e., science can't prove anything)

 

[Tashena]

Not to be too nitpicky or anything. But has anyone else noticed this posting style recently among creationists here? Like, no paragraphs, but finishing every sentence with three or more dots?... I can only wonder. Why you such a writing style? Which wrong with paragraphs and single dots?

Ok well let me see. Since going to college I've learned to write extensive paraghaphs and the 3 little dots which are called ulipces... I use them alot in writting my papers...It's a habbit I guess...


GOD BLESS! Have a great evening!

 

[Dal M.]

Since going to college I've learned to write extensive paraghaphs and the 3 little dots which are called ulipces...

Ellipses.

GOD BLESS! Have a great evening! [/color][/font]

You too.

 

[Tashena]

Ahhh... yes thank You!!! lol

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Nope. Ridiculous. The classification system allows you to create a nested hierarchy that's all. Nice story but it isn't true.

Then presetn your evidence, don't jsut state something as a fact, wihtout any support, and expect people to agree, there is far too much of that these days.

Ghost

 

[USincognito]

It all depends on your interpretation. The evidence really doesn't prove anything.

I never cease to be amazed at how many professing Christians gladly embrace post-modernism and Eastern religious concepts. Seriously. I continue to bang my jaw on my keyboard when I see things like "You interpret those mountains as being 70,000,000 years old, I interpret them as being 4,000." It's as if the word reality only desribes a TV genre for them...

Speciation, for example, can be observed but it doesn't prove anything.

Well it certainly would provide evidence that speciation occurs wouldn't you say? And I must say, it's quite refreshing to see this admission.

We can see fish are still fish and birds are still birds, even though new species are continually being created.

Hold on a second. If you're discussing speciation, why did you start with Classes, and then discuss species? Why didn't you say "an albacore tuna is still an albacore tuna and a red-tailed hawk is still a red tailed hawk?" We haven't seen a new Class rise since birds and mammals during the Jurassic/Cretaceous time frame.

And it's not likely genetic mutations can lead to new characters on a preexisting organism. We seem to be pretty well defined by nature and the genetic sequence to be what we are. And that applies to all living things.

What do you mean by "characters?" Do you mean "characteristics?" If so, you're half-right. Nature's a lot better at using certain parts to make different parts than it is in innovating novel parts. If you look at all the tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) they all have their four limbs, but just have adapted them in different ways. If you want to get right down to it, every organizism from worms on up is basically a food tube with different accutrements.

Let's say we have most of the genes for wings. That would be like saying we're 98% similar to birds, for example.

I realize you're just using this for illustrative purposes, but by bouncing all over the place with classifications it really weakens any point you're trying to make. Since you're referring to humans, how about sticking with mammals and referencing bats to make you point wings.

And no, the genome is far to large for something (say an atavistic ability to grow enormously long fingers and membranes of skin between our sides and our fingertips {wasn't Bat Boy in the Weekly World News?} like the presence of wing making DNA to make us 98% similar. That would probably only account for a few percentage points of similarity in addition to all the other shared characteristics of the two compared taxa.

All we're missing, theoretically, is a few genes. But to make even one and make it fit, would affect a change in the entire sequence. We wouldn't be human anymore.

Correct. Humans (and I'm sticking with bats here) don't fly, are not nocturnal, have different teeth, etc. etc. from bats. But in order for there to be a real Bat Boy, the change in DNA would need to be much more than just a few genes. We'd need to be much smaller, our bones would need to be much lighter, our posture would need to change radically, we'd need those giant fingers and we'd need the flap of skin from basically our ankle to grow large enough for us to take flight. It would take many gene changes to create a Bat Boy and we would have stopped being human long before the final result.

Wings require the right size body for some reason. Science doesn't explain why and evolution or random changes would not predict it.

Really? Ever hear of the Moa, Elephant Bird, Cassowary, Emu or Ostrich? Wings might be a requirement for heavier than air flight, but just because an animal has wings, it doesn't mean evolution will select for them to fly, nor does it place limitations on body size - unless the species is meant to fly.

But the idea that we are descended from a common ancestor is what the theory predicts. Logically it would be impossible given the limited nature of mutational changes that an organism can survive without dying.

Here's that post-modernism again. Trying to apply logic to a hard science. But if you want to take that road, logically we would see new adaptations in species which developed out of previous adaptations. And that's exactly what we see in the fossil record which is verified by looking at DNA. Lobe finned fish gave rise to the tetrapod Classes, and each of them have characteristics based on that 4 limbed body scheme - even those like snakes and whales which don't seem to at first glance.

You could still have evolution and observe speciation but that wouldn't prove everything is related by descent to a common ancestor.

Yes, that's why we look at things like phylogenies, atavisms, biogeography, endogenous retrovial insertions and DNA evidence to demonstrate that common descent has occured.

 

[USincognito]

How does creationism handle parthenogenetic species like the whip tailed lizard? Did the male fall over the side of the ark, so God made the famles not need them any more?

I'd still like to get a response on this from any Creationist willing to give it a stab.

 

[†(ÎXØ¥Ê)†]

God created every animal the way he saw fit.. Since he created everything we see around us, creator of the universe, than I'm sure it's possible that he can make a animal like the parthenogenetic lizard u speak of.