Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,178 Year: 5,435/9,624 Month: 460/323 Week: 100/204 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Creationist's view of Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
ramoss
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 120 of 218 (327702)
06-30-2006 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by inkorrekt
06-29-2006 11:04 PM


Re: Considering rapid rate of mutation
Define 'top level'???
We are the species that are the most technological, yes, but does that mean 'top level'??
It has not been established that either techology or intelligence is a good long term survivial technique. After all, our species has only been around less that 200,000 years, and our technology has only been about 12,000 years or so.
The cockroach seems to be much more robust in surviviablity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by inkorrekt, posted 06-29-2006 11:04 PM inkorrekt has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 125 of 218 (329802)
07-08-2006 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
07-08-2006 2:35 AM


Re: Difference between Kind and Species
Well, technically, the terms mean the same thing, "kind" merely being the English word for the Latin "species." The terms are interchangeable but we use them differently just because evolutionists think the proliferation of NEW species proves evolution, and Kind DOESN'T refer to NEW species, but to the ORIGINAL of each animal that has subsequently "speciated" into the many types known today.
Ok.. You have admited that "KIND" is a term that means the same things as 'species'.
The fact that one species gives rise to another species (or two), or that two populations of the same species, for what ever reason, no longer interbreeds, and have enough variation between the two to no longer able to interbreed, that is evolution.
Congraduations, you have just started accepting evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 07-08-2006 2:35 AM Faith has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 131 of 218 (330244)
07-10-2006 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by inkorrekt
07-10-2006 1:28 AM


Re: Considering rapid rate of mutation
Define "Lower scale". That is not a biological term, nor is it used by evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by inkorrekt, posted 07-10-2006 1:28 AM inkorrekt has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 148 of 218 (341096)
08-18-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
08-18-2006 1:00 PM


The problem is that most changes by mistake are not desirable ones. "Genetic difference" in itself is not at all desirable in other words. This is how we get all the genetic diseases. What does "a change of 1% in 20,000 years" mean? You assume a positive change that can facilitate evolution, but all your examples are hypothetical and you give no statistics on the percentage of USEFUL mutations as compared to undesirable ones -- meaning those that NO environment is going to favor. The (Biblical) creationist view that Things Are Getting Worse is still the better explanation than evolution for all these phenomena.
You are making a couple of mistakes in your reasoning. 1) most mutations are 'neutral' . 2) Unless there is some survival reason for a genetic disease, it tends to become less over time. For example, the gene for diabeties. You would think that it would get less as generations went by, but they found that when one parent had that gene, and the other didn't, there was a bigger perceptange of children born with the gene than expected. Since most pregnancies end in miscarriage, the conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the gene that might cause health problems later in life gave a survival characteristic to a fetus in the womb. There were less spontanous miscarrages with fetus's that carried the gene than did not.
You are also ignoring the filtering of natural selection. "bad" mutations are more likely to be 'filtered' out than neutral or "good" mutations.
As for the 'things are getting worse' senerio from the creationsist... there is no objective evidence for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 08-18-2006 1:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 08-18-2006 4:11 PM ramoss has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 162 of 218 (341342)
08-19-2006 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
08-18-2006 4:11 PM


Well, since it is true, you do not understand the process. Most mutations do not produce either an advantage or disadvantage, it is for the most part, merely a change. Some of these genes don't provide an advantage or disadvanate in the current environment, but MIGHT, if the environment changes. If it is a 'change in alle', it might or might not be destructive. ALl it means is that the duplication process of the gene when the egg/sperm was created was imperfect. If it is not benefictial,the gene gets filtered out via natural selection. Many of these changes seem to stop the organism from forming in embryo form (did you know that 75% of all human pregnancies end in miscarrage , mostly during the first month?
As for the tend for things 'gettings worse'. I havent' seen ANY evidence for it being true at all. I have seen examples of beneficial mutations .. such as delta 26, and the HDL cholestrol gene of that sicilian family.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 08-18-2006 4:11 PM Faith has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 171 of 218 (341413)
08-19-2006 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
08-19-2006 2:26 PM


The reason is that due to the fact that modern jaws are relatively smaller than they were in earlier times. Therefore, the jawbone does not have enough room in many modern jawbones. THis , in turn, causes more dental problems because of crowding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 2:26 PM Faith 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