Evolution in pieces.

The fact that frame-shift mutations occur all the time with deleterious or neutral effects is enough to lead one to that conclusion, I would think. When we see that they happen for no good reason, and that it usually ends badly for the organism involved, it's ludicrous to point to a particular one and assert design just because the results are good. They're not even well-designed - the enzyme is far less efficient than the original. It is selected naturally because there is no competition for that food. Evolution doesn't require perfection. It only requires something to work with.

Ooook! You have managed to do nothing but add the typical evolutionary spin on things. The more we look the more dis-similar we are from chimps, at the DNA level. However I could type out two sentences that are 98% similar yet totally opposite in meaning.Descent by modification is only that when looked at through evolutionary glasses. When you can show us that mutations/ NS can lead to upright walking please let us know.

Theistic evolution is not allowed in the classroom. Naturalistic evo is all that is being taught. Maybe these colonies are the same as you but they are vastly different from me. Colonies don't help your case. I have read about the volvox, slime molds and colonies. I understand the hypothesis. Cellular differentiation is still a mystery.Life overcomes boundaries? Is that why there is a tree-line on mountatins?

No one said the results of the design had to be good.

quote:

---

Design IS the mechanism.

---

Sorry, this is not enough. I could say that the snorts of an invisible unicorn keeps the stars in the sky, but that still isn't a mechanism. Is there an enzyme that causes specific mutations to specific stimuli, ie was there an enzyme that responded to nylon derivatives in the environment that caused the specific frame shift mutation in the bacteria? I would say no. If there was, then yes I would agree that it is by design.Design and design mechanism are not the same thing. Random mutations are simply mistakes made by enzymes in a non-directed manner, as well as transposon mutagenesis, DNA damage due to UV light and contaminants, and so forth. That is a mechanism. Design is not a mechanism unless you can show HOW design is occuring through MECHANICAL processes. You might as well say Fairy Dust is the mechanism, it has as much explanatory power.

quote:

---

Not theistic evolution- Design. Theistic evolution is in contrast with the current theory.

---

Wrong. Your argument was for theistic evolution, because it describes an evolutionary process, where the process was started by a designer.

quote:

---

If you would allow theistic evolution into the classroom you are half-way there.

---

Theistic evolution is allowed in the classroom. Evolutionary theory doesn't cover origins.

quote:

---

Any evidence that those colonies became such via random mutations culled by NS?

---

Well, we've seen a single celled organism become colonial - what more do you need?

quote:

---

But anyway even those colonies still reproduce single-celled organisms.

---

Yes. As I've stated several times, they alternate between living as single celled and multicellular, which makes them an intermediary form.

quote:

---

Most, if not all, colonies become so as a defensive/ survival mechanism.

---

Yep! Welcome to the wonderful world of evolution, John!

quote:

---

HOX genes? I wonder if evolutionists will ever tell us how those evolved.

---

They already have. It's a receptor protein feedback loop with mitosis. Chemically altering when mitosis is stimuated is no challenge at all, and something that can easily occur naturally. Receptor proteins mutate readily as well. Transcriptases can be enabled and disabled easily, and can mutate, as can what activates them. What more do you need?

quote:

---

Pidgeons are still pidgeons....

---

Join in the thread, then, and explain how morphological changes as dramatic as that can occur, but how there's supposedly some sort of barrier elsewhere that prevents evolution from going further. I'm still awaiting whether you are of the opinion that a change in the number of chromosomes is possible.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Descent by modification is only that when looked at through evolutionary glasses. When you can show us that mutations/ NS can lead to upright walking please let us know.

---

Many smaller primates are bipedal on the ground. Have you ever watched a spider monkey walk?Besides, what sort of barrier is there that you think prevents gradualistic change from switching from a quadroped pelvis to a biped? I can give you tons of intermediates, past and present.

quote:

---

Life overcomes boundaries? Is that why there is a tree-line on mountatins?

---

Evolution is not a God - it is subject to the limitation of physics (notice that plants *do* continue to grow higher up, they just can't be in the "tree" shape).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-16-2003]

I thought we were allegedly closer related to chimps than monkeys? This doesn't help your case.It is not up to me to provide a barrier. It is up to you to provide POSITIVE evidence to support your case.Provide the intermediates...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOX genes? I wonder if evolutionists will ever tell us how those evolved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rei:
They already have. It's a receptor protein feedback loop with mitosis. Chemically altering when mitosis is stimuated is no challenge at all, and something that can easily occur naturally. Receptor proteins mutate readily as well. Transcriptases can be enabled and disabled easily, and can mutate, as can what activates them. What more do you need?John Paul:
That doesn't tell me how HOX genes originated.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most, if not all, colonies become so as a defensive/ survival mechanism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rei:
Yep! Welcome to the wonderful world of evolution, John!John Paul:
Well if that was all the theory was about we wouldn't be having this chat. I can easily use the above as evidence for design.When I start alternating between single and multi-cellular I will believe your assertion.

Yes it is. You are the one claiming that small changes can't add up to large ones. The small changes have been undeniably demonstrated, i.e. that 1 + 1 = 2. It is up to you to demonstrate that 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10. (btw that analogy was shamelessly lifted from Rrhain) It has been provided. That you believe there to be limitations on the variability of morphology over time is your burden to prove.

quote:

---

I thought we were allegedly closer related to chimps than monkeys? This doesn't help your case.

---

It's an example of how common bipedality is.

quote:

---

It is not up to me to provide a barrier. It is up to you to provide POSITIVE evidence to support your case.

---

Wrong. You see, given the absense of a barrier, unless you don't believe that advantageous mutations fixate, evolution is guaranteed.

quote:

---

Provide the intermediates...

---

Chimpanzees are partway between bipeds and quadropeds; they can walk on two legs, but tire easily and need to return to four.Please indicate whether you want another intermediary possibility which is less bipedal or more bipedal than chimpanzees (or let me know when you've had enough examples).

quote:

---

quote:

---

They already have. It's a receptor protein feedback loop with mitosis. Chemically altering when mitosis is stimuated is no challenge at all, and something that can easily occur naturally. Receptor proteins mutate readily as well. Transcriptases can be enabled and disabled easily, and can mutate, as can what activates them. What more do you need?

---

​

That doesn't tell me how HOX genes originated.

---

Yes it does. Receptor proteins and mitosis-related transcripases. Please read better.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Most, if not all, colonies become so as a defensive/ survival mechanism.

---

​

Yep! Welcome to the wonderful world of evolution, John!

---

​

Well if that was all the theory was about we wouldn't be having this chat. I can easily use the above as evidence for design.

---

No. You can't use it for either, because it is predicted by both (well, actually, such adaptation didn't use to be predicted by creationists, but they've pretty much been forced to accept it, so now it suddenly becomes predicted by them also).

quote:

---

When I start alternating between single and multi-cellular I will believe your assertion.

---

You don't know anything about the TOE, do you? That's probably the worst straw man I have ever had the misfortune to encounter on this board.Don't take that as a compliment; you should be ashamed by it.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

You already did, you started as a single diploid cell. It is very simple embryology.

Rei: "Besides, what sort of barrier is there that you think prevents gradualistic change from switching from a quadroped pelvis to a biped? I can give you tons of intermediates, past and present."Sometime if you have the time and opportunity, I would sincerely appreciate a good site on this subject. One with plenty of pictures and graphics to help demonstrate the intermediate progressions. Thanks.

Past or present?There are lots of intermediates in the present. The past for homonids is more fragmentary, but we have skeletons like Sahelanthropus tchadensis which shares a number of characteristics with habitual bipeds, such as the position of the nuchal crest (the bone that allows the nuchal muscle in the back of the neck to attach to the skull); however, the foramen magnum (the hole that the spinal cord leaves through) is positioned in the back of the skull instead of the base, indicating to an extent life as a quadraped. In short, it shares characteristics of both.A good example of species that alternate in the present day are chimpanzees and bonobos. I can give a number of other examples that are either more or less inclined to upright walking - your call as to which you would like to see.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

"Your call as to which you would like to see."------------------I'm particularly looking for intermediates between pre-totally upright hominids and homo sapiens, and I would like to see non-Neanderthal and non-Cromagnon pelvic structure that clearly exhibits the individual's ability to walk totally upright without the trademark Chimp "bowlegged waddle." You know, with the legs squarely underneath the torso.