Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,468 Year: 3,725/9,624 Month: 596/974 Week: 209/276 Day: 49/34 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genetic Evidence of Major Changes in Body Shapes
mark24
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 31 of 37 (4151)
02-11-2002 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by LudvanB
02-11-2002 12:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
I think so to a degree and this would certainly go a long way toward explaning the crustacean turning into a fly over time...as a result of its changing environement.

Natural selection is environment driven, the underlying mutation rate, by and large, isn't.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by LudvanB, posted 02-11-2002 12:08 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 32 of 37 (6594)
03-11-2002 2:01 PM


This got brought up in another string, so I'm bumping it up to the top. There was also a second string, but it only went 3 messages (I believe).
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 37 (6598)
03-11-2002 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by sld
02-09-2002 12:12 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by sld:
[B]What 24 hours after my post and no creationist response? Come on, we finally have genetic proof of a mechanism for macroevolution. Isn't that what you creationists have been demanding?
------I think it is a bit premature to deem this study the definitive proof of viable macro-evolution. Wait until the scientific and other communities have had an oppurtunity to truly examine and "digest" the data you put forth. The post simply discusses a brief synopsis of a very detailed and complicated study which hasn't been fully released. Keep this study in mind and let's revisit it a little further down the line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by sld, posted 02-09-2002 12:12 AM sld has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 04-07-2002 9:09 AM leekim has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 34 of 37 (8235)
04-06-2002 1:28 AM


Bumped for chafihar's viewing pleasure - No extra charge!
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 37 (8237)
04-06-2002 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 1:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i dont, thats what im saying!!! :-) i wont fully believe it as a fact until we observe it though.

Do you not accept the existence of electrons or gravity as a fact, because we sure haven't observed either of those?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 1:02 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 37 (8262)
04-07-2002 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 11:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
doesnt that disprove human evolution then? we never need to mutate because of our brain, given to us by God. So we never mutated.

Except that I have that beneficial mutation of having no botom wisdom teeth. And then there is the natural selection that occurred during the Black Plague which subsequently seems to have conferred resistance and even immunity to the HIV virus to a small segment to the population whose ancestors came from Plague areas.
If mutations have never occurred, then we would all be clones of each other.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 11:11 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 37 (8263)
04-07-2002 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by leekim
03-11-2002 4:00 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by sld:
[B]What 24 hours after my post and no creationist response? Come on, we finally have genetic proof of a mechanism for macroevolution. Isn't that what you creationists have been demanding?
------I think it is a bit premature to deem this study the definitive proof of viable macro-evolution.[/QUOTE]
We don't deem any study "definitive proof", actually. There's no such animal in science.
It is, however, a rather important piece of the puzzle, and very compelling.
quote:
Wait until the scientific and other communities have had an oppurtunity to truly examine and "digest" the data you put forth.
I am curious about which "other" communities you are referring to, and why their analysis of the data should matter (if it isn't a scientific analysis)?
I absolutely agree that the results need to be replicated and the scientific checks and verifications need to be done with these results, just as they are done with all other results, to see if they stand up to scrutiny.
However, the paper would seem to be of good quality if it is getting published in Nature.
[QUOTE]The post simply discusses a brief synopsis of a very detailed and complicated study which hasn't been fully released. Keep this study in mind and let's revisit it a little further down the line.
[/b]
Sounds good.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by leekim, posted 03-11-2002 4:00 PM leekim has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024