Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: We understand the argument. It's the evidence that's lacking to back it up.

As posted in response to another thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00150.x

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17412289&ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17625923&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16533822&ordinalpos=29&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17644960&ordinalpos=41&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17614906&ordinalpos=73&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17614905&ordinalpos=74&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

etc...

As well, enter evolution, speciation, macroevolution, mutation, etc into search field in PubMed for literally thousands of articles showing evidence for evolution.

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17688679&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FEvolutionCase.htm

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html

(and once again) etc...

Pick one to start with

Because you are new to the board (welcome), you aren't expected to know that we don't respond to links.

If you would like to pick one specific example, state it and we'll begin a new thread.

Thank you!

(in regard to your duplicate posting)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

As posted in response to another thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00150.x

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17412289&ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17625923&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16533822&ordinalpos=29&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17644960&ordinalpos=41&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17614906&ordinalpos=73&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17614905&ordinalpos=74&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

etc...

As well, enter evolution, speciation, macroevolution, mutation, etc into search field in PubMed for literally thousands of articles showing evidence for evolution.

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17688679&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FEvolutionCase.htm

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html

(and once again) etc...

Re: Re: Please explain and be specific

Brian,
Wow. That is a beautiful piece of science fiction. Truely, it is. There are, however, certain gaping holes in your pressure sensing scenario.



Name: Brian
Email: counterbrian@yahoo.com
In our ear, we have simply evolved more sensitive apparatuses that amplify small changes in pressure, i.e. sound. What did these mechanically gated ion channels originally evolve from? I'm not sure that answer is known yet. I could imagine that the ability to sense pressure was developed very early on, since organisms that could sense pressure would have a far greater chance of survival.

This is like saying, "Gee, it would be beneficial to win the lottery, so I'll do that first." Whether it is beneficial or not has no effect on the odds of you winning. After you win, then natural selection could decide if it is beneficial.


So the first pressure-sensing devices were undoubtedly very primitive and probably didn't resemble anything we have now. It could have been something as simple as a short chain of amino acids embedded in a cell membrane which, when pushed on (by a small vibrating bone, for example), created a hole in the membrane that allowed ions to flow in, starting the signaling cascade.

So this rest on the huge assumption that there is already an ion-flow sensing mechanism in place and working. If this were not the case, then why would an ion flow produce any response.


Next, I would like you to explain how a sticker in your toe , (same as an amino acid stuck in the cell membrane), then becomes a genetic material that is passed down.


I have several other comments, but no time for now.

Later.

Re: Re: Re: Please explain and be specific

Joe,

Your first analogy makes no sense, you'll have to clarify. I don't see how that situation bears any resemblance to the tenets of evolution.

As I've already stated, I don't know what the origin of life/replication is. I don't know what the first pressure sensing devices looked like (at the molecular level). I am not putting forth this hypothetical scenario as fact, I am putting it forth as a hypothesis, which I'm trying to use to illustrate the basics of evolution.

A sticker in your toe? Same as an amino acid stuck in the cell membrane? What are you talking about?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Please explain and be specific

I agree Brian, Joe's post made no sense. Is anyone surprised?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Please explain and be specific

Brian,
The point of my posting is that your hypothesis as an illustration of the basics of evolution is total nonsense.

Getting any useful mutation is like winning the genetic lottery. Now I agree that sensing pressure would be highly valuble trait and it is easy to see that natural selection would certainly benefit any organism that aquires it. Its usefulness, however, does not make it any more likely that an organism is going to hit that genetic lottery jackpot.
That is what I meant.

As for your scenario itself, you stated that "Short chains of amino acids were certainly around very early on, and any lipophyllic sequences would embed in a cell membrane." I equated this to having a sticker get stuck in your toe. If this happens you are definitely more sensetive to contact and pressure on your toe. The difference is that we already have all the other necessary equipment in place to detcet these changes. You said that the amino acid would tear a hole and allow an ion flow. But that is useless without an already working system for detecting an ion flow.


The last point that shows a lack of the basic fundmentals of evolutionary process is that even if your scenario happened, there is absolutely no mechanism for rebuilding your "sensor" in future generations. Just as getting a sticker in your toe is not passed on to your children, the instruction for rebuilding your "sensor" have not in anyway made any change to the encoding in the DNA.

Your scenario is complete nonsense as an evolutionary example. I give you much credit for the attempt. The arrogance with which you propose your hypothoses needs to come down about three notches. As it has been said on this forum before, science is happy to admit when it is wrong and change the theories. It is just easier to do so without a foot in your mouth. :)

As for your continual use of the "throw my hands up an declare 'God did it' argument", that is total fallacy too. Just because I know that someone created the computer I am using does not mean that I cannot use it, or study it to see how it works. Many of histories greatest scholars and scientist were believer in God. (Gallelio, Capernicus, Newton) Knowing the God created something does not in anyway diminish human curiousity of how it works.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please explain and be specific

Joe,
I assumed a greater understanding of genetics, mutations and evolution on your part, that is why my illustration does not make sense to you.

I will try to clear up a couple of issues for you, however please understand that it is not my job to make creationists understand basic science. And it gets frustrating when people would rather remain ignorant than learn. I am happy to discuss these issues with people who bring with them a desire to learn. I get frustrated with people who don't understand the basics of the theory, then claim that the theory does not make sense and must be fallacious.

Yes, getting any useful mutation IS like winning the genetic lottery. It may seem to you like winning the lotter is not very probable, but in fact many people do indeed win the lotter EVERY DAY. The fact that winning the lottery is unlikely does not mean that it doesn't happen. It does happen. Every day. The process of evolution is very slow. But do yourself a favor and find out how many people have won the lottery in just the last 10 years. And then consider that the earth is several billion years old.

As for the "sticker" scenario, what you have presented is not in any way related to what I have presented. Getting a sticker stuck in your toe is not a phenomenon that is analogous to the action of mechanically gated ion channels. In fact, they are so unrelated that I don't really know where to begin this. In my scenario I assumed that a signaling apparatus was already in place. I assumed that membrane potentials already existed. I assumed that a mechanism for signal transduction already existed. I assumed that neurotransmitters already existed. I thought it was pretty clear that I was presenting a possible EVOLUTIONARY scenario, not an ORIGINS scenario. In fact, I wrote, "What did these mechanically gated ion channels originally evolve from? I'm not sure that answer is known yet." There is certainly a wealth of scientific knowledge relating to the most primitive sensing devices in much less complex organisms than humans, so feel free to spend some time with PubMed. The original series of questions that Julie presented related to (1) what the first sensing device was and (2, 3, and 4) how this primitive device evolved into an ear. I said that I don't know the answer to the first question (although it is a tremendously interesting question), and that the following 3 questions demonstrated a severe lack of understanding of the basics of evolution, which is why I presented the scenario that I did. For the tenth or so time, I did not present that scenario as fact; reread my post. Or maybe read it for the first time, as the case may be. I presented it as an illustration to demonstrate some basics, which Julie still refuses to comprehend.

You wrote:
"The last point that shows a lack of the basic fundmentals of evolutionary process is that even if your scenario happened, there is absolutely no mechanism for rebuilding your "sensor" in future generations."

Here is where I assumed a basic knowledge of genetics and evolution. You have confused germ line mutation with somatic mutation. Please just go to Wikipedia and read the entry for "mutation". I never implied that the changes I described would occur over the course of a single lifetime, and this fact is too obvious to require mention to anyone with even a cursory understanding of evolution, which I assumed on your part on on Julie's part. She is, after all, running a website in which evolution is the sole subject. There are a variety of mechanisms for germ line mutation. Surprise me and read up and tell ME something I don't already know.

As for your comment, "I give you much credit for the attempt", don't flatter yourself, I don't need your patronage. My proposal did not start with arrogance. However, people who refuse to learn or acknowledge their lack of understanding bother me. And you are only fooling yourself if you think that religion does not thrive on ignorance. Furthermore, while some great scholars may have believed in god (however you define that), very, very very few (i.e. think about your lottery analogy) believe that the theory of evolution is wrong.

You may pontificate all you want but just give us ONE scenario

Since you are still unable to provide just ONE genetic scenario that articulates how mutations continuously build on each other to make more complex materials, we'll assume you haven't got a clue.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Joe,
I assumed a greater understanding of genetics, mutations and evolution on your part, that is why my illustration does not make sense to you.

I will try to clear up a couple of issues for you, however please understand that it is not my job to make creationists understand basic science. And it gets frustrating when people would rather remain ignorant than learn. I am happy to discuss these issues with people who bring with them a desire to learn. I get frustrated with people who don't understand the basics of the theory, then claim that the theory does not make sense and must be fallacious.

Yes, getting any useful mutation IS like winning the genetic lottery. It may seem to you like winning the lotter is not very probable, but in fact many people do indeed win the lotter EVERY DAY. The fact that winning the lottery is unlikely does not mean that it doesn't happen. It does happen. Every day. The process of evolution is very slow. But do yourself a favor and find out how many people have won the lottery in just the last 10 years. And then consider that the earth is several billion years old.

As for the "sticker" scenario, what you have presented is not in any way related to what I have presented. Getting a sticker stuck in your toe is not a phenomenon that is analogous to the action of mechanically gated ion channels. In fact, they are so unrelated that I don't really know where to begin this. In my scenario I assumed that a signaling apparatus was already in place. I assumed that membrane potentials already existed. I assumed that a mechanism for signal transduction already existed. I assumed that neurotransmitters already existed. I thought it was pretty clear that I was presenting a possible EVOLUTIONARY scenario, not an ORIGINS scenario. In fact, I wrote, "What did these mechanically gated ion channels originally evolve from? I'm not sure that answer is known yet." There is certainly a wealth of scientific knowledge relating to the most primitive sensing devices in much less complex organisms than humans, so feel free to spend some time with PubMed. The original series of questions that Julie presented related to (1) what the first sensing device was and (2, 3, and 4) how this primitive device evolved into an ear. I said that I don't know the answer to the first question (although it is a tremendously interesting question), and that the following 3 questions demonstrated a severe lack of understanding of the basics of evolution, which is why I presented the scenario that I did. For the tenth or so time, I did not present that scenario as fact; reread my post. Or maybe read it for the first time, as the case may be. I presented it as an illustration to demonstrate some basics, which Julie still refuses to comprehend.

You wrote:
"The last point that shows a lack of the basic fundmentals of evolutionary process is that even if your scenario happened, there is absolutely no mechanism for rebuilding your "sensor" in future generations."

Here is where I assumed a basic knowledge of genetics and evolution. You have confused germ line mutation with somatic mutation. Please just go to Wikipedia and read the entry for "mutation". I never implied that the changes I described would occur over the course of a single lifetime, and this fact is too obvious to require mention to anyone with even a cursory understanding of evolution, which I assumed on your part on on Julie's part. She is, after all, running a website in which evolution is the sole subject. There are a variety of mechanisms for germ line mutation. Surprise me and read up and tell ME something I don't already know.

As for your comment, "I give you much credit for the attempt", don't flatter yourself, I don't need your patronage. My proposal did not start with arrogance. However, people who refuse to learn or acknowledge their lack of understanding bother me. And you are only fooling yourself if you think that religion does not thrive on ignorance. Furthermore, while some great scholars may have believed in god (however you define that), very, very very few (i.e. think about your lottery analogy) believe that the theory of evolution is wrong.

I've already shown several.

I find it humorous that you can be presented with data that is exactly what you've asked for, then claim that you still haven't been presented with any valid data. Telling, to say the least. Well, readers can review what has been presented and decide for themselves.

Readers can read for themselves ...

I completely concur with your comment,
"readers can review what has been presented and decide for themselves."

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I find it humorous that you can be presented with data that is exactly what you've asked for, then claim that you still haven't been presented with any valid data. Telling, to say the least. Well, readers can review what has been presented and decide for themselves.

Readers can see...

... how you drop threads, change the subject or move the goalposts.

Your nonresponses to the evidence are there in the debates over the whale sequence, the common ancestory of humans and chimps, the transitional nature of Australopithecus afarensis, etc.

Re: Please explain and be specific

Wow, Brian.

I certainly did not mean to offend you, but I am not sure how much simpler I can make my explaination.

Let's say that all of your major assumptions are true. Everything is already in place and working.

Then a random amino acid floating around gets stuck in the cell membrane. Wow, suddenly the cell has developed pressure sensitivity!! Great!! That cell, bacteria or whatever, can sense pressure changes and knows when to run away and not get eaten. Natural selection at it's finest.

Now, please explain your hypothesis of the mechanism by which an externally caused feature, meaning not caused by a genetic mutation, gets passed on to the offspring. Do you think the offspring would have this random amino acid embedded in the cell wall even though it is not encoded in the DNA?

Where did I say anything about it having to happend quickly, (ie. In one lifetime as you put it.)?

I have confused germ line mutation with somatic mutation. You are confusing external cause with mutation. Your scenario is not a mutation of any kind. That was my point.

If you bother to read some of my other posts, you might realize that my knowledge of genetics is far greater than you think.


As for your last comment, you might try looking into a little.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Re: Re: Please explain and be specific

Joe,
Here is the fundamental point you are missing: I never implied that "an externally caused feature, meaning not caused by a genetic mutation, gets passed on to the offspring". EVERYONE understands that if it's not encoded in your (germ cell) DNA it's not going to get passed on. That's not a point that I thought I needed to make explicitly, because it's so obvious.

Again, and I'm going to make this short (for more detail, please reread my post from 8/8/07, 1:50 a.m.), I have suggested that our sense of hearing evolved from some simpler pressure sensing device. Mutations over time led to DNA that coded for an increased sensitivity in this device, such that even the extremely subtle pressure changes that are sound can be detected.

Finally, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"? Are you kidding? Joe, I'm going to make 2 gentle suggestions here. And you can file these under "how to think like a scientist":
1. Consider whether a control experiment has been performed, and it it hasn't, then carefully question the validity of the results.
2. Do your own research before you suggest that someone "might try looking into [it] a little".

Here is the Wikipedia entry for "Dissent": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism. I don't mean to suggest that Wikipedia is the end all be all of scientific knowledge, but many people at least start with a glance there to see what it has to say, then go from there. I strongly suggest that readers read the entry themselves, however here are a couple of representative quotes:
1. "The document itself has been the subject of controversy and extensive criticism from a variety of sources."
2. "the list of signatories contains only a miniscule fraction of scientists in the relevant fields and representing an insignificant fraction of the total scientific population."
3. "The Discovery Institute has continued to collect signatures, reporting 300 in 2004[11], over 400 in 2005[12], over 600 in 2006[13], and 700 in 2007....in October 2005, an unfunded grass roots counter petition, A Scientific Support For Darwinism, was organized and gathered 7733 signatures from scientists in four days."

A Dissent From Darwinism is a joke, Joe, and it's used to try to manipulate masses of people who aren't scientists and have no background in the theory of evolution.

Re: Re: Re: Please explain and be specific

Your original scenario says:

"It could have been something as simple as a short chain of amino acids embedded in a cell membrane which, when pushed on (by a small vibrating bone, for example), created a hole in the membrane that allowed ions to flow in, starting the signaling cascade. Short chains of amino acids were certainly around very early on, and any lipophyllic sequences would embed in a cell membrane."


What does your last statement have to do with the likelyhood that the DNA would encoded such changes as to embed an amino acid sequence in the cell membrane?

Now if you had said, 'a genetic mutation created lipophyllic sequences that would then embed in a cell membrane', then we would not have had all these replies back and forth.

I apologize for not understanding what you meant to say, as oppose to what you actually wrote.


Now we can move on the the odds that such a scenario might happen. :)

Re: Please explain and be specific

Oh, this is just bull****. More fundie garbage.

Response to 'Silvermute' posting

Thank you, Andrew, for your articulate discourse.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Oh, this is just bull****. More fundie garbage.

Simple answers to the questions you asked

whoisyourcreator: In your post "Please explain and be specific", you asked a number of questions. You added a few more as the thread went on. However, I think some of the responses were just too long. Here are links with answers to each of your questions:

"1. Please explain how ONE chance mutation would lay the genetic foundation for the ability to sense pressure."
A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_1.html

"2. Please explain how THE SECOND mutation miraculously found and built on the first to further evolve to possess that abilty (not funcational yet)." and "4. Please explain why the first to the subsequent mutations necessary to allow for a fully operational 'sense' would be preserved by natural selection."
#2 and #4 both ask the same two questions, which need to be answered seperately. First, you're wondering how a bunch of successive mutations could have created a feature:
A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html
But also, since you said "not funcational yet"[sic], you clearly think that a biological feature can only have one purpose, and while it's being evolved it must be useless and "preserved" until it is complete and can fulfill that purpose. For more on that fallacy, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html

"3. Please explain what 'drives' a mutation to create a complex genetic sequence that incrementally and progressively changes with each mutation without having any game plan."
A: Natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow.

"Why don't evolutionists start 'predicting' some of the things that might support evolution. It might help you everytime science comes up with something that blows a hole in their theory."
Arneson already handled this one, but here's another:
A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

"Only changes in the germline (cells passed on to the next generation) are relevant to evolution, but molecular change in germ cells have been found to harm overall genetic fitness, not improve it."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Finally, since a lot of time has been given to the evolution of the ear, please refer to this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Since this is so 'simple,' why don't you take us through a couple mutations?

Since you seem to understand the evolution of 'hearing,' why don’t you explain in detail the most likely scenario of:
1. The first 3 random mutations of ONE mechanically gated hair cell
2. The first 3 random mutations of the ‘wiring’ for the electrical signals that need to transmit to the brain
3. The first 3 random mutations of the receptors that receive and react to the signals
4. The first 3 mutations needed to connect everything together while you're at it? Unless, everything gets linked together, nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity, which is about as basic as you can get in the evolution of hearing.

These links might help you with the mechanics of it all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_cell
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050318-4.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=bnchm.box.3378

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

whoisyourcreator: In your post "Please explain and be specific", you asked a number of questions. You added a few more as the thread went on. However, I think some of the responses were just too long. Here are links with answers to each of your questions:

"1. Please explain how ONE chance mutation would lay the genetic foundation for the ability to sense pressure."
A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_1.html

"2. Please explain how THE SECOND mutation miraculously found and built on the first to further evolve to possess that abilty (not funcational yet)." and "4. Please explain why the first to the subsequent mutations necessary to allow for a fully operational 'sense' would be preserved by natural selection."
#2 and #4 both ask the same two questions, which need to be answered seperately. First, you're wondering how a bunch of successive mutations could have created a feature:
A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html
But also, since you said "not funcational yet"[sic], you clearly think that a biological feature can only have one purpose, and while it's being evolved it must be useless and "preserved" until it is complete and can fulfill that purpose. For more on that fallacy, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html

"3. Please explain what 'drives' a mutation to create a complex genetic sequence that incrementally and progressively changes with each mutation without having any game plan."
A: Natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow.

"Why don't evolutionists start 'predicting' some of the things that might support evolution. It might help you everytime science comes up with something that blows a hole in their theory."
Arneson already handled this one, but here's another:
A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

"Only changes in the germline (cells passed on to the next generation) are relevant to evolution, but molecular change in germ cells have been found to harm overall genetic fitness, not improve it."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Finally, since a lot of time has been given to the evolution of the ear, please refer to this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Re: Since this is so 'simple,' why don't you take us through a couple mutations?

Random mutations from what? All of these would have come from something else.

There's an interesting case of a considerable amount of reuse of one particular ion channel, TRPA1, which is involved in hearing (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503849) and expressed in hair cells.

It is also used in other sensory-type situations (http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=TRPA1) - distinguishing strong smells like cinnamon and mustard, as well as participating in the feeling and detection of cold (http://www.molecularpain.com/content/1/1/16)

There is a considerable amount of reuse of genes, proteins and substances. A number of medications are not to be taken or in some cases handled by pregnant women because the reuse is even for different developmental stages - handling things like hair loss medication that interferes with dihydroxytestosterone can interfere with male fetal development at critical stages, since the testosterone by-products do different things at different stages in the womb.

Distal-less is another pretty fascinating example. It's reused in butterfly development in multiple separate stages from segments to legs to wing spots, and humans have it as well (DLX1-4), performing some similar and some different functions.

You are correct when you say that nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity. That ought not compel us to stop finding out why.

My guess is that at least some of the components predate the deuterostome/protostome split, since components of vision go back at least that far (e.g. mouse and human homeobox genes for eye development can cause fly eyes to be expressed in flies)

Remember that mutations are not usually a works/doesn't work scenario. There is duplication in the genetic code (usually, spelling changes in the last of the 3 'letters' doesn't matter), plus the biggest driver in protein shape is the attraction or repulsion to water of the amino acids that make it up, and mutations tend to go between amino acids of similar (but not the same) attraction to water. Many of these mutated proteins simply affect the rates of other reactions (which go on to spur others), and that alone can be better or worse depending on the situation - think metabolism, or mucus production or adrenalin.

This is just what we find when we try to find out how things work. The is no grand moral conspiracy here, and I must say the implication of such is confusing at best.

Not up for an explanation?

1. You claim that features arise from “something else” but we’re still waiting for you give us that hypothetical scenario of what that might look like. It should be easy for you as we are giving you the leeway of using fantasy, verses provable facts. If evolutionists can’t even come up with solid hypothetical scenarios on how new features arise from random mutations and natural selection, the theory of evolution is nothing but faith, not science.

2. You also claim that evolution “reused” a previously evolved ion channel (TRPA1) and that some components “predate the deuterostome/protostome split.” You fail to connect that your weak attempt just pushes the creation of them back to a previous time so you still need to explain how these materials arose originally.

3. I have NO idea of what your point is on the medication/pregnant women analogy???

4. In regard to your comment,
“My guess is that at least some of the components, since components of vision go back at least that far (e.g. mouse and human homeobox genes for eye development can cause fly eyes to be expressed in flies)”

Hox (homeobox) genes again?

“Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.” (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107B:167–177).
Refer to http://trueorigin.org/homeobox.asp

5. In regard to your comment,
“You are correct when you say that nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity. That ought not compel us to stop finding out why.”

When you figure it out, let us know. But currently, the theory of evolution is still nothing but faith, not science.

6. In regard to your comment,
“Many of these mutated proteins simply affect the rates of other reactions (which go on to spur others), and that alone can be better or worse depending on the situation - think metabolism, or mucus production or adrenalin. “

Think proving they ‘simply’ arose by random mutations and natural selection…

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Random mutations from what? All of these would have come from something else.

There's an interesting case of a considerable amount of reuse of one particular ion channel, TRPA1, which is involved in hearing (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503849) and expressed in hair cells.

It is also used in other sensory-type situations (http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=TRPA1) - distinguishing strong smells like cinnamon and mustard, as well as participating in the feeling and detection of cold (http://www.molecularpain.com/content/1/1/16)

There is a considerable amount of reuse of genes, proteins and substances. A number of medications are not to be taken or in some cases handled by pregnant women because the reuse is even for different developmental stages - handling things like hair loss medication that interferes with dihydroxytestosterone can interfere with male fetal development at critical stages, since the testosterone by-products do different things at different stages in the womb.

Distal-less is another pretty fascinating example. It's reused in butterfly development in multiple separate stages from segments to legs to wing spots, and humans have it as well (DLX1-4), performing some similar and some different functions.

You are correct when you say that nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity. That ought not compel us to stop finding out why.

My guess is that at least some of the components predate the deuterostome/protostome split, since components of vision go back at least that far (e.g. mouse and human homeobox genes for eye development can cause fly eyes to be expressed in flies)

Remember that mutations are not usually a works/doesn't work scenario. There is duplication in the genetic code (usually, spelling changes in the last of the 3 'letters' doesn't matter), plus the biggest driver in protein shape is the attraction or repulsion to water of the amino acids that make it up, and mutations tend to go between amino acids of similar (but not the same) attraction to water. Many of these mutated proteins simply affect the rates of other reactions (which go on to spur others), and that alone can be better or worse depending on the situation - think metabolism, or mucus production or adrenalin.

This is just what we find when we try to find out how things work. The is no grand moral conspiracy here, and I must say the implication of such is confusing at best.

Re: Not up for an explanation?

1. Fine. I will explain one process by which new information can be added. Take a gene. Any gene. Doesnt matter which. Duplicate it (it has been observed). Most gene duplications are neutral. One copy continues to perform its task while the other sits by. Now, either of these genes can mutate without harming the organism. So one continue its function while the other can mutate without worry. As the copy mutates, it will run into beneficial or deleterious mutations. Eiether of those will be an addition of information. Think of it this way. AGTC copies to AGTC, AGTC. A mutatution occurs and it is now AGTC, ATCG. New info. This has all been observed.

2.How the materials arose orgnially, the fisrt life form, is a problem for abiogenesis. Not evolution.

3. He was using it as an example as to how reusing the same materials can yeild different effects.

4.Drosophila genes are but one class of hox gene. Using one example in an attempt to discredit them all is childish at best.

5. You keep saying that, but whenever asked you refuse to back that up. Even when presented with obvious evidence, you keep picking at tiny little points that we have yet to come up with an answer for. It´s no different from when people told Edison he was crazy for trying the lightbulb when he hadnt succeeded yet.

6. It´s been observed. You deny what people have seen, studied, oberved, and replicated many times before?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. You claim that features arise from “something else” but we’re still waiting for you give us that hypothetical scenario of what that might look like. It should be easy for you as we are giving you the leeway of using fantasy, verses provable facts. If evolutionists can’t even come up with solid hypothetical scenarios on how new features arise from random mutations and natural selection, the theory of evolution is nothing but faith, not science.

2. You also claim that evolution “reused” a previously evolved ion channel (TRPA1) and that some components “predate the deuterostome/protostome split.” You fail to connect that your weak attempt just pushes the creation of them back to a previous time so you still need to explain how these materials arose originally.

3. I have NO idea of what your point is on the medication/pregnant women analogy???

4. In regard to your comment,
“My guess is that at least some of the components, since components of vision go back at least that far (e.g. mouse and human homeobox genes for eye development can cause fly eyes to be expressed in flies)”

Hox (homeobox) genes again?

“Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.” (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107B:167–177).
Refer to http://trueorigin.org/homeobox.asp

5. In regard to your comment,
“You are correct when you say that nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity. That ought not compel us to stop finding out why.”

When you figure it out, let us know. But currently, the theory of evolution is still nothing but faith, not science.

6. In regard to your comment,
“Many of these mutated proteins simply affect the rates of other reactions (which go on to spur others), and that alone can be better or worse depending on the situation - think metabolism, or mucus production or adrenalin. “

Think proving they ‘simply’ arose by random mutations and natural selection…

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Random mutations from what? All of these would have come from something else.

There's an interesting case of a considerable amount of reuse of one particular ion channel, TRPA1, which is involved in hearing (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503849) and expressed in hair cells.

It is also used in other sensory-type situations (http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=TRPA1) - distinguishing strong smells like cinnamon and mustard, as well as participating in the feeling and detection of cold (http://www.molecularpain.com/content/1/1/16)

There is a considerable amount of reuse of genes, proteins and substances. A number of medications are not to be taken or in some cases handled by pregnant women because the reuse is even for different developmental stages - handling things like hair loss medication that interferes with dihydroxytestosterone can interfere with male fetal development at critical stages, since the testosterone by-products do different things at different stages in the womb.

Distal-less is another pretty fascinating example. It's reused in butterfly development in multiple separate stages from segments to legs to wing spots, and humans have it as well (DLX1-4), performing some similar and some different functions.

You are correct when you say that nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity. That ought not compel us to stop finding out why.

My guess is that at least some of the components predate the deuterostome/protostome split, since components of vision go back at least that far (e.g. mouse and human homeobox genes for eye development can cause fly eyes to be expressed in flies)

Remember that mutations are not usually a works/doesn't work scenario. There is duplication in the genetic code (usually, spelling changes in the last of the 3 'letters' doesn't matter), plus the biggest driver in protein shape is the attraction or repulsion to water of the amino acids that make it up, and mutations tend to go between amino acids of similar (but not the same) attraction to water. Many of these mutated proteins simply affect the rates of other reactions (which go on to spur others), and that alone can be better or worse depending on the situation - think metabolism, or mucus production or adrenalin.

This is just what we find when we try to find out how things work. The is no grand moral conspiracy here, and I must say the implication of such is confusing at best.