Bolder-dash's very own little thread

They're not just abundant --- most of them have also become fixed. In some cases, hundreds of millions of years ago. If you can find someone who denies such things as gene duplication, chromosome duplication, polyploid speciation, and lateral gene transfer, then I will make him apologize to you.The changes must be small in the sense that one can't get a fundamental co-ordinated saltation in anatomy --- from an ordinary theropod to a modern bird, for example. But there is no need for them to be small as measured by the number of affected bases of DNA.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, all of those examples you just stated, such as the Sickle Cell gene, and the peppered moths, and Darwin's finches are really evidence AGAINST your theory, not for it. For example, in the Sickle Cell gene, the individual affected by the disease is less fit, than those without the defect-even though it causes a resistance to malaria. They have not inherited better functioning body systems, they have inherited worse functioning systems, even it is does resist them to one particular disease. The only reason they are resistant to the disease is because the shape of their blood hemoglobin is so bad, that it become sticky and inflexible. This is not a good condition for human functioning, and would never ever lead to an improved body plan by anyone's reckoning.Furthermore, with the peppered moths, they did not create any new kind of species, nor any new functioning whatsoever. In fact, as soon as the soot went away, the darker colored moths returned (and there are more problems with the evidence here, that I won't go into).Likewise, with Darwin's finches, the populations continue to oscillate back and forth between longer beaked finches, and shorter ones, with no overall effect to the species at all.So, I would say when we look at things closer, the evidence gets more and more sparse. if not altogether non-existent.

Its possible that organisms with simple photoreceptor proteins could eventually lead to a complex body function with the ability to see various wavelenths as different colours and could lead further to a method of focus for various distances. I am willing to bet that such a complex system would be advantageous to some species.

No, they are actually more fit. Being more fit means having a greater chance of surviving and producing offspring. In areas where the sickle-cell gene has been successful, the side-effects of sickle-cell anemia are not as bad as Malaria. Hence, people are better off with a bit of sickle-cell anemia than malaria. At least when a carrier only has one copy of the allele. It is when you have two copies of the gene that the deleterious effects of sickle-cell anemia become truly a problem. The theory of evolution predicts that genes that improve the fitness of a population will spread, even if these same genes might prove detrimental in another population under different selection pressures. That's why sickle-cell anemia isn't prevalent in, say, Russia, where having it doesn't confer an advantage to one's survival. Exactly. But you asked me to illustrate the mechanisms of evolution, not to demonstrate examples of speciation. I gave you the Ensatina salamanders and the Italian Wall Lizards as examples of that. I could provide the Herring Gull as another example of a ring species where a clear speciation has taken place.But the finches of Galapagos, and the peppered moth both illustrate very well the powers of natural selection, and that was the reason I brought them up. Do you not agree that natural selection is what causes the beaks of the finches to vary, and the peppered moths to become darker?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Now, in regards to your Italian Wall lizards. How long were these species transplanted to the new environment before they started developing all of these changes? I am guessing it wasn't a very long time. Certainly nowhere near as long as the thousands or hundreds of thousands of years that your side claims is necessary for these small incremental changes to take hold in a population.In other words, one way to disprove Darwin's theory is if the changes DO NOT occur through slow, random mutations, but through a much quicker route, somehow already inherent within the animal. These animals have already changed FOUR different things in a minuscule amount of time. Which of the four things do you think natural selection was selecting for first? How long did it take for a completely random mutation to occur to give them a cecal valve? Does that sound like the definition of random mutations and natural selection to you? Clearly these were not new traits to the species, that never existed before. To show that, all you would have to do is show how often do these types of mutations occur in populations where there is NO need for them.You better think about that one.

You are missing the point. The point is to show how any of these mutations (they weren't even mutations in the finches and the moths) could develop a new body plan. The fact is they couldn't. Sickle Cell anemia certainly can't do that.Are you suggesting that Sickle Cell anemia is one of the best examples your side has to prove the effectiveness of your theory to produce new, unique and fitter body plans? That's a big problem for your theory if that is the case.

To give you an analogy about the Sickle Cell anemia; suppose that in one village, there were a group of individuals who got some crippling disease which didn't allow them to work. As such, they could never go outside, and were bed ridden. Now one day all the other villagers were out hunting, and got attacked by a large group of hunting heynas. The hyenas killed every villager who went outside, but the "fortunate" cripples with the diseased legs all survived because they couldn't go outside.Did natural selection just select a new body plan, one for cripples?This is what happens to sickle cell victims.

About 40 years. Not true. In small populations with short generations, beneficial mutations can become fixed very quickly. All four. And why not? Natural Selection is by no means restricted to selecting for only one trait. I'm no biologist, so I can't tell you exactly how many mutations were required to produce the cecal valves. But it is clearly a useful innovation for a mostly herbivorous lizard, so it is easy to see why non-random selective forces would preserve the trait and eventually fix it within the population. But, at most it took about 40 years. Why do you see a problem with that? Remember, in small populations with faster generations a lucky mutation, be it good or bad, could easily become fixed within the population in a short time. Populations adapting to selection pressures in the environment? Yup, it sounds like evolution by natural selection. When a lizard in a large population has a neutral mutation that doesn't catch on I'm not surprised that it isn't noticed. Natural selection tends to produce bigger changes when selective pressures are higher.Respectfully,-MeldinoorEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

That depends on your definition of "body plan". But if the "crippling disease" was genetic in nature, and if being crippled somehow magically made an individual more fit within a certain environment, then yes, NS would select for "cripples".Respectfully,-Meldinoor

That's not what our side claims, that's something you made up.You know how every now and then people suggest to you that you should learn something about biology? Well, this is exactly the sort of dumb mistake that knowing something about biology would save you from making.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I think I overlooked this part of your argument, and as I re-read your posts I think this seems to be the main objection you've raised to the naturalistic origin of body parts and functions. Let's see if I understand you correctly first. Essentially what you're saying is: "If random mutation can produce entirely new body parts and functions, why don't we see these randomly appearing in populations today? Even if they're not selected for." Is that the jist of your argument?I think the problem is that you're looking for the wrong kinds of evolutionary developments. Evolution rarely produces truly novel traits in a population. Mostly (as I suspect it was with the Italian Wall Lizard's cecal valves) it gets by by just molding existing structures to produce new functions. A creature that is born with some new appendage or tissue would be more likely to be considered a "freak" than the originator of some new large-scale evolutionary development, because such large-scale mutations are generally not beneficial.Small changes to existing systems, however, can be and quite often are beneficial, such as with the peppered moths or the lizards. For example, nobody believes that a complex organ such as the eye just popped into existence through some lucky slew of mutations, but through the modification of earlier eyes. That's why we don't expect a brand new complex organ to pop into existence randomly, or even to recognize the first steps in the evolution of some system.Consider this: Imagine if you had lived some 800 million years ago and had no knowledge of eyes, simply because no creature at that time had them. Assume you were studying some simple pre-cambrian creatures and noticed that some of them had developed photo-sensitivity. Without knowing the future, how could you know that this was the beginning of a path that would produce complex systems such as the camera eye. You probably would not see the significance of this minor trait even as it was right there before you. Similarly, today it is impossible to look at a population and point out the beginning of "new and unique body plans" (as you put it), because we do not know where they're going to go. Evolution is not teleological (means "directed").Anyway, I hope that helped explain my point of view. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable of the subject matter will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this should address at least this quibble that you have with evolution.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

I hope you don't assume that I just thought of this yesterday, and that I don't really understand the premise behind your theory.So let's do imagine we are in that pre-Cambrian era and noticed some creatures with light sensitive patches some where on their body. We might remark, well, that sure is odd, you don't see that very often, and even more fascinating, it really seems to help those creatures navigate better than those without that little patch.And then if we waited another very long time (or as Dr. A wants to suggest we only have to wait less than 40 years, we would see those same creatures now, all with the light patches, and even more fortunately some of them have gotten a little depression in their bodies, EXACTLY where that little light patch happens to be, and amazingly enough that little depression (I mean little depression in animals bodies happen mutationallly all the time I guess right) ALSO happens to provide a small little concave surface which helps focus the light every so slightly more, such that now those with the depression are even better at navigating than those without the depression. Mutations are much more fortunate now in this scenario than we first thought. But don't worry, there will be more of these fortunate little depressions. And then after than a cornea will pop up. And some time after that, rods will pop up, and then cones, and then a retinal nerve, and then of course an iris and then a pupil..or will it be a pupil first, and then an iris?But of course we are just getting started, because two of them will certainly be better than one. And if they are perfectly symmetrical, so much the better. I wish we could also get a tear duct. Whoa, viola! You got it. Would you like an eyelid? great. It will help if that eyelid is extremely rapid, so rapid that it can move at the speed of a blink. And you know what, its not just one form of liquid we get to luck into our tear ducts, its two!! Bonus time.We could of course go on and on with these fortunate beneficial mutations which are so rare, but let's return to the present for now. Where are these light sensitive patches that pop up now and again like they used to during the pre-Cambrian? Or how about microwave sensitive patches. I could sure use a night sensitive patch on my forearm, for those times when I get up in the middle of the night and trip on my slippers. That would be an advantage.How about these random mutations for new tear ducts? Corneas anyone? Because supposedly they just pop up spontaneously every once in a while in some mutants, but we just never noticed-at least they did in the pre-Cambrian-oh, how times have changed. I sure do miss those days of spontaneous rods and cones. Especially if they happen to happen in a place I could really use them. I mean, I get spontaneous rods all the time, but not always in the backs of my eye.But heck, if a lizard can change FOUR fundamental parts of its body in 40 years, if I just lived to be 60, and have a few kids, and they have kids, who knows, they might just end up with 6 retinas instead of two, plus that night patch we so desperately could use.Ah, its a dream. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Ok. That's not what he said. But let's ignore that for now. The depression could be all over their bodies, as long as the light sensitive cells are inside one, it doesn't matter, it's not as simple as having one mutation determine there is a depression somewhere on the body. It's far more likely that it results in something like a "bumpy surface". Why? Kinda like that, yes. Yes, so far so good. Evidence that they are rare, or anything other than simply "fortunate" as you claim? How would this improve your survival? But not to your survival. that's all that matters. I don't think anyone will say that complete tearducts will pop up all at once. Well, maybe you would. Evolution doesn't happen to individuals either. You would know this if you had read a biology book or two. We don;t need a night patch desperately, it would add absolutely nothing to our succes at survival. And I don;t think there's enough pressure for any other thing you mentioned here, not to mention that no one said every individual would be born with these mutrations. The ones that don;t have them simply get replaced by those who have.

Please do not lie about what I "want to suggest".Don't you ever worry ... you know ... that God might exist and that he might disapprove of liars? So ... you don't know anything about the evolution of the eye? Or, apparently, how the eye works.Really, you think that a concave eyepatch would focus light? Good grief. Still here. Which is why there is no pressure for them to evolve again.

BTW, why was Faith banned before? Because no one could come forward and support her arguments?Ok, since this is my thread, I come forward. I will support her. Does that mean she can return now?