|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why humans can't breed giraffes as descendants - 7/9/2008 12:25:39 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. No two concepts are mutually exclusive when you redefine them to mean whatever you want!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why humans can't breed giraffes as descendants - 7/9/2008 1:22:45 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
We observe evolution producing a nested hierarchy. Nope! You've interpreted the "nested hierarchy" as evidence for evolution. No one has ever observed even one single instance of evolution much less dozens of separate events producing anything. It's a wonderful fiction, Method, but it ain't science!
I will say again. We have DIRECTLY OBSERVED THE PRODUCTION OF NESTED HIERARCHIES THROUGH THE MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION. You can deny the facts all you want but it will not change the facts.
Unless you can give me a mechanism by which non-interbreeding species can exchange DNA the only result possible is a nested hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why humans can't breed giraffes as descendants - 7/9/2008 1:36:42 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 521
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
We observe evolution producing a nested hierarchy. Nope! You've interpreted the "nested hierarchy" as evidence for evolution. No one has ever observed even one single instance of evolution much less dozens of separate events producing anything. It's a wonderful fiction, Method, but it ain't science!
Designed objects do not fall into a nested hierarcy. ID creationism offers no reason for the observed nested hierarchy. If the kinds (however you define kind) were designed, we would not expect them to fall into such an arrangement, but they do.
However, evolution neatly explains the existence of the observed nested hierarchy and predicts that future observations of newly discovered species and observed speciation events will continue to fall into the same nested hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why humans can't breed giraffes as descendants - 7/9/2008 5:02:37 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 532
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
We observe evolution producing a nested hierarchy. Nope! You've interpreted the "nested hierarchy" as evidence for evolution. No one has ever observed even one single instance of evolution much less dozens of separate events producing anything. It's a wonderful fiction, Method, but it ain't science!
Designed objects do not fall into a nested hierarcy. ID creationism offers no reason for the observed nested hierarchy. If the kinds (however you define kind) were designed, we would not expect them to fall into such an arrangement, but they do.
However, evolution neatly explains the existence of the observed nested hierarchy and predicts that future observations of newly discovered species and observed speciation events will continue to fall into the same nested hierarchy.
God created animals with instincts of self-protection. Every organ, every nerve, every aspect of each living thing was created with a design and a purpose. Evolution has no purpose because the theory espouses that it all happened by accident. Yet evolutionists claim there is a predictable reaction in all living things.  So evolution is nothing but one contradiction after another and contradictions are lies which makes the theory of evolution a lie.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why humans can't breed giraffes as descendants - 7/9/2008 5:17:23 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 305
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
God created animals with instincts of self-protection. Every organ, every nerve, every aspect of each living thing was created with a design and a purpose. Evolution has no purpose because the theory espouses that it all happened by accident. Yet evolutionists claim there is a predictable reaction in all living things. So evolution is nothing but one contradiction after another and contradictions are lies which makes the theory of evolution a lie.
The theory of evolution does not say things happen by accident. I'm afraid this is another example of a case where you seem sadly misinformed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why humans can't breed giraffes as descendants - 7/9/2008 5:25:34 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
God created animals with instincts of self-protection. Every organ, every nerve, every aspect of each living thing was created with a design and a purpose.
Evidence, please.
quote:
Evolution has no purpose because the theory espouses that it all happened by accident.
Evolution is a force of nature just like gravity. If you consider evolution to be an accident then you must also consider waking up on the right side of your bed as an accident.
quote:
Yet evolutionists claim there is a predictable reaction in all living things.
We observe a predictable reaction in all living things because all life follows the same physical laws and share a common ancestor.
quote:
So evolution is nothing but one contradiction after another and contradictions are lies which makes the theory of evolution a lie.
Accidents occur through predictable laws, so I don't understand what you mean by a contradiction.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why humans can't breed giraffes as descendants - 7/9/2008 5:51:48 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Gene regulation can produce a variation within a population even though it is not a Darwinian process.
How so? Gene regulation in an individual is considered phenotype plasticity and is not heritable, as shown by the failure of Lamarckism.
If a new, heritable phenotype is due to gene regulation then this requires a DNA change in the regulators. DNA change is mutation and a large part of the theory of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why humans can't breed giraffes as descendants - 7/9/2008 6:23:13 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 527
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Gene regulation can produce a variation within a population even though it is not a Darwinian process.
How so? Gene regulation in an individual is considered phenotype plasticity and is not heritable, as shown by the failure of Lamarckism.
If a new, heritable phenotype is due to gene regulation then this requires a DNA change in the regulators. DNA change is mutation and a large part of the theory of evolution.
The only type of "gene regulation" that I'm aware of that requires a change in the DNA code would be a change in the promoter sequence. This would only be beneficial to the bacterium if it needs more or less of the protein that the promoter encourages. If, in the future, this protein is not needed as much, it would be detrimental to the bacterium to be producing so much of the protein, and the bacterium would be out-competed. If, however, the regulation of the gene is through activator and repressor proteins, then the result would be a phenotype that looks like an evolutionary change, when in reality it is mearly a change in the expression of DNA. The difference is that a mutation in the promotor sequence would be a change in the DNA and heritable even if it is to the future detriment of the bacterium.
My point being, gene regulation looks like evolution, while it is not. Though its effects can be (and has been) lumped in under the term "evolution".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why humans can't breed giraffes as descendants - 7/9/2008 11:56:16 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
The only type of "gene regulation" that I'm aware of that requires a change in the DNA code would be a change in the promoter sequence.
That is evolution. A heritable change in phenotype caused by a change in DNA sequence.
quote:
This would only be beneficial to the bacterium if it needs more or less of the protein that the promoter encourages. If, in the future, this protein is not needed as much, it would be detrimental to the bacterium to be producing so much of the protein, and the bacterium would be out-competed.
Mutations are always in reference to the environment. There is no such thing as a universally beneficial mutation. A polar bear is well adapted to it's environment and this fact is not refuted by the fact that a polar bear would die quite quickly in the Sahara.
Also, gene regulation is extremely important in metazoans. Chimps and humans only differ by suprisingly low number of genes. The difference in morphology is most likely due to differences in gene regulation due to DNA differences in gene regulators. Mutations causing changes in gene regulation are extremely important in understanding evolution in metazoans. This is why Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo) is one of the hottest fields in biology.
quote:
If, however, the regulation of the gene is through activator and repressor proteins, then the result would be a phenotype that looks like an evolutionary change, when in reality it is mearly a change in the expression of DNA.
DNA changes in the activator or repressor proteins which cause changes in gene regulation is evolution.
quote:
The difference is that a mutation in the promotor sequence would be a change in the DNA and heritable even if it is to the future detriment of the bacterium.
Then it will be selected against just like any other detrimental mutation.
My point being, gene regulation looks like evolution, while it is not. Though its effects can be (and has been) lumped in under the term "evolution".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why humans can't breed giraffes as descendants - 7/10/2008 12:52:54 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 527
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
That is evolution. A heritable change in phenotype caused by a change in DNA sequence.
Perhaps, but a change in such a small promoter sequence is very unlikely, and it would be very lucky indeed if it were to happen at just the right time to improve the bacterium's quality of life. I only mentioned this form of "gene regulation" to point out that it exists. Promoter sequences merely regulate the amount of expression of a gene, they do not turn them off or on like protein regulation.
quote:
Mutations are always in reference to the environment. There is no such thing as a universally beneficial mutation. A polar bear is well adapted to it's environment and this fact is not refuted by the fact that a polar bear would die quite quickly in the Sahara.
Yes, a polar bear is well suited to its environment. This is probably due to evolution and natural selection. However, I would predict that there was no addition of information to make the polar bear's fur transparent, or it's nose black, or to make the bear particularly large. I would predict that these processes are all due to regulation or deactivation of pigmentation and various growth mechanisms, possibly caused by mutations that cause things not to work. You call it evolution. That's my point. It doesn't particularly matter what the mechanism is just so long as it's called evolution.
quote:
Also, gene regulation is extremely important in metazoans. Chimps and humans only differ by suprisingly low number of genes. The difference in morphology is most likely due to differences in gene regulation due to DNA differences in gene regulators. Mutations causing changes in gene regulation are extremely important in understanding evolution in metazoans. This is why Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo) is one of the hottest fields in biology.
I don't know what makes humans different from apes so I couldn't comment on that. I would say that there are a lot of things that cause complexity in higher organisms. Different gene splicing patterns being a very large part. That being the case, humans and chimps could be different to a very large degree and have nearly identical genomes just so long as the splicing mechanisms are sufficiently different. A change in the splicing mechanisms is also inheritable and would fall under the umbrella term of evolution.
quote:
DNA changes in the activator or repressor proteins which cause changes in gene regulation is evolution.
You're doing an excellent job of proving my point. However, a change in the environment would not cause a change in the proteins nor the DNA that codes for them, but would cause a change in what they are doing. Even though the DNA never changes, activator and repressor proteins can cause rapid changes in a bacterial phenotype simply because the environment changes. You can have an entire ecosystem of one species of bacteria and never have a single change in one base pair. This can, however, fall under the umbrella term of evolution if nobody bothers to discover the mechanism for the change and sufficiently explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why humans can't breed giraffes as descendants - 7/10/2008 5:24:05 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Perhaps, but a change in such a small promoter sequence is very unlikely,
Why is it lucky? Is there a mechanism that prevents mutations from occuring in promoter sequences that I am unaware of?
quote:
and it would be very lucky indeed if it were to happen at just the right time to improve the bacterium's quality of life.
But once the mutation occurred it's offspring would quickly become dominant in the population.
quote:
I only mentioned this form of "gene regulation" to point out that it exists. Promoter sequences merely regulate the amount of expression of a gene, they do not turn them off or on like protein regulation.
They also regulate the TIMING of gene expression which is extremely important in metazoan development.
quote:
Yes, a polar bear is well suited to its environment. This is probably due to evolution and natural selection.
Is the polar bear maladapted because it could not survive if the environment changed? Like I said, fitness is always measured with reference to the current environment.
quote:
However, I would predict that there was no addition of information to make the polar bear's fur transparent, or it's nose black, or to make the bear particularly large. I would predict that these processes are all due to regulation or deactivation of pigmentation and various growth mechanisms, possibly caused by mutations that cause things not to work. You call it evolution. That's my point. It doesn't particularly matter what the mechanism is just so long as it's called evolution.
Mutations which produce selectable change IS evolution. If evolution does not require new information then why do creationists use it as an argument?
quote:
I don't know what makes humans different from apes so I couldn't comment on that. I would say that there are a lot of things that cause complexity in higher organisms. Different gene splicing patterns being a very large part. That being the case, humans and chimps could be different to a very large degree and have nearly identical genomes just so long as the splicing mechanisms are sufficiently different. A change in the splicing mechanisms is also inheritable and would fall under the umbrella term of evolution.
Splicing is controlled by DNA sequence in the introns, so mutations would change splicing patterns which would then lead to changes in morphology. Again, this is evolution. The idea of one gene = one change is not true, as I am sure you are aware. If gene regulation is not based on DNA sequence (i.e. inheritable) then we should see human traits that are not heritable, or even more dramatic human offspring that are very different from their parents.
quote:
You're doing an excellent job of proving my point. However, a change in the environment would not cause a change in the proteins nor the DNA that codes for them, but would cause a change in what they are doing.
Absolutely, and all organisms with the same DNA sequence would react in the same way. They all contain the same phenotype placticity. In order to change the reaction to a stimulus you must change the DNA sequence.
quote:
You can have an entire ecosystem of one species of bacteria and never have a single change in one base pair.
Monocultures are extremely rare in nature. Biofilms, like that on your teeth and in your gut, are made of tens to thousands of different species of bacteria. Their interaction does require changes in gene regulation due to environmental stimulus, but their gene regulation toolkit is limited by their DNA sequence. In order to have new reactions to stimulus they require a change in DNA sequence.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
