|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 3/4 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there any proof of beneficial mutations? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13108 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
ICDESIGN writes: Its funny how evolutionists can go on and on off topic as well as insult me and yet the moderators never say a word. I mentioned new function earlier and was immediately red tagged on this thread. If you are experiencing problems with discussion or moderation then you should take those issues to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread. The topic is about the evidence for beneficial mutations, which is mutations that can produce a benefit in a single generation. It is not about the evidence for the evolution of entire new functions, which take many, many generations. Please take discussion of new functions to a thread where it would be on topic, for example, Evolving the Musculoskeletal System. To everyone: Please keep the focus of discussion strictly on the topic. Please avoid comments about how wonderfully you're doing or how terribly your opponents are doing. Avoid making any comments about your opponents at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Compliance.
Edited by crashfrog, : Compliance!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member (Idle past 134 days) Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: |
I believe a mutation can modify a function but not create an entirely new function. We agree with you. That's exactly how mainstream evolutionary theory describes matters. New features, almost without exception, are simply modifications of old features. Often after duplication freed up one copy for modification.
A NEW function and a MODIFIED function are two entirely different classifications so let me clarify. This is where you are wrong. Functions are not discrete entities. Take a feather for example. A feather is a modified scale (we know this because of the proteins involved in its formation, the proteins involved in its structure, homologies with other organisms, and the developmental processes through which it goes). A scale's primary function is protection. Simple feathers, similar to those found today on many birds, and in the fossil record on many dinosaurs, are a small modification of a scale. A small shift in the timing of various development signals causes the production of a small branched structure. These "downy" feathers provide insulation. A few further small modifications turn these downy feathers into stiffer, straight structures similar to those that appear to be present on pre-avian running dinosaurs. These were probably primarily used for signalling, but may have also had an aerodynamic role. And then, finally, you have the true flight feathers, capable of directing the flow of air, and providing a light, stiff-but-flexible, large flight area. A new function, but no abrupt change, just modification of existing function. The same with the wing bones themselves (in bats, birds and pterosaurs, in fact); no new bones, no new muscle groups, just modification of the proportions of existing bones leading, eventually, to a new function. Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 5056 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Percy said this isn't the thread to discuss new function so I will decline to refute the several points I disagree with you about.
IC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13108 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
ICDESIGN writes: Percy said this isn't the thread to discuss new function so I will decline to refute the several points I disagree with you about. You've had five replies waiting for you for over a week over at your Evolving the Musculoskeletal System thread, see your Message 232. That would be an excellent thread to discuss the evolution of new functions. You can also respond to Mr Jack's post over there, just be sure to be clear that you're responding to a message from another thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Another example of a beneficial mutation occurs in deer mice, here's a layperson note about it from Discover Magazine: Fast-Track Evolution Gave Rise to Deer Mouse’s Pale Coat
The Sand Hills of Nebraska formed over a period from 15,000 to 8,000 years ago, and deer mice in this region have lighter fur than deer mice elsewhere. Genetic analysis reveals that a mutation for lighter fur occurred in the Agouti gene about 4,000 years ago, evidently as a protective measure. Light-colored deer mice have an estimated 0.5% better chance of survival in the light-colored sands, and over a few thousand years this has caused light coloration to become dominant in the Sand Hills. Here's a link to the scientific paper in Science, but as always, you need a subscription if you want more than the abstract: On the Origin and Spread of an Adaptive Allele in Deer Mice --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 5056 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Percy writes: You've had five replies waiting for you for over a week over at your Evolving the Musculoskeletal System thread, see your Message 232. That would be an excellent thread to discuss the evolution of new functions. You can also respond to Mr Jack's post over there, just be sure to be clear that you're responding to a message from another thread. OK, thanks Percy. Can I start out with "back by popular demand"?...Yeah right, as the guy you love to gang up on Actually, I have more questions than ever with the many things that aren't lining up with what you guys have been proclaiming. So I think I WILL revisit that thread for some more robust sword fighting.I don't have the time to devote as so many of you seem to have but I will be back over there soon. Wanting to keep it as friendly as possible,IC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
Yes that is very obvious isnt it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
well yes - the first two happened in the lab, the second two aren't present in the entirety of the population and are a minority, ergo unless godidit they are relatively recent mutations which can be backtracked by some sleuthing to find out when and where they came from... The first two didn't happen in the lab. The first one was the AIDS resistance mutation in humans. This has been around for centuries. I also don't think it's clear that it provides any resistance to the Black Death. This was just a hypothesis to explain why models suggested it spread in Europe about 700 years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
Don't forget retroviruses- They are currently believed is how new innovations occur and because they are involved in regulatory functions that they can modify bone structure, scales into feathers, etc. The fact that they are species specific and target a specific chromosome in alteration is important. Creation vs evolution debate will continue because retroviruses can be viewed either way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member (Idle past 291 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Don't forget retroviruses- They are currently believed is how new innovations occur and because they are involved in regulatory functions that they can modify bone structure, scales into feathers, etc. The fact that they are species specific and target a specific chromosome in alteration is important. This sounds pretty confused, could you give us some links to where you are getting this information from? Or a much clearer explanation of what you are saying?
Creation vs evolution debate will continue because retroviruses can be viewed either way. No, the debate will continue because no matter what the evidence the creationists will persist is viewing it in such a way that it can be shoehorned into their belief system making up new ad hoc explanation as they go along. Just look at any of the threads about genetic information to see the frequent goalpost moving that is characteristic of these discussions. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
Is there a retrovirus mutation or mutation that indicates the point when the genes started forming feathers and what else does those genes do in the host?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member (Idle past 134 days) Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: |
Is there a retrovirus mutation or mutation that indicates the point when the genes started forming feathers and what else does those genes do in the host? Huh? What do retroviruses have to do with this? There are a great many genes involved in feather formation, including many regulatory genes. It is rare for regulatory genes to be uniquely involved in any particular feature so it is likely that many of the genes involved are active elsewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 5035 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
This post is off topic. --Admin
quote: No, the scientists themselves disagree with each other:
quote: quote: The fossil record (or lack thereof) shows more gaps than 'fills' in information over time. There is not ONE documented 'transitional' fossil that is undisputed, many times by evolutionists themselves.
quote: Evolution is contraversial. If it were fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we.
quote: Oh, good. Then give me an undisputed transitional fossil. Give me any 'transitional' fossil. I'll find scientific evidence against it within a week, guaranteed.
quote: And so should these scientists: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm and these ones: Scientists Speak Out Regarding Evolution and these: Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net Trust me, we are embarrassed. That evolution is still taught to our kids. Oh, and I read books. Though I do find the internet an easy access to information, I read books. Thats right, there are WHOLE BOOKS that argue ID. Imagine that.
quote: In case you missed grade one, there was a period after my point on radiocarbon dating. The following sentence starts, quite clearly, with "The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon", which is a plural, and refers to the parent-daughter dating methods, aside from carbon dating. Remember, periods start a new sentence, commas carry on a thought.
quote: A simple cell would require most, if not all, of the following mechanisms (since these are what we see today, even in 'simple' organisms): 1. complex protein molecules,2. long-chain DNA RNA and molecules to store and transmit information, 3. six or eight different nucleotide molecules, 4. various lipid molecules, 5. sugar 6. twenty different amino acid molecules 7. chemical machinery to assemble proteins, RNA and DNA molecules from the building block molecules 8. a very accurate, information transmission and translation system 9. efficient error correcting systems to correct errors(mutations) that occur when DNA is copied during cell division 10. chemical machinery to capture energy from outside the cell 11. a cell membrane to hold the parts together and separate the inside from the outside 12. supplies of phosphorous, calcium, sodium, potassium and other inorganic elements, 13. chemical and physical conditions suitable for the accumulation and proper chemical combination and structural arrangements of all of these parts It's not simple, no matter how you look at it.
quote: So what makes you think that your side MUST be right, no matter what? As technology gets better with time, so does our understanding of past and present in biology and evolution. So if evidence mounted over time against specific points on the theory of evolution, you should reject those points, because you are not allowed to question a scientific theory? If thats the case, why are you even on here? Scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final). The very definition of a scientific fact argues against your belief that two sides should debate to accept one as factually true. Edited by Admin, : Add comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
The thread's about evidence for beneficial mutations.
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024