E
edwest211
Guest
Yes, as in the fruit fly experiments which mixed up existing genetic material. They could not survive outside of the lab.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
B
Bradskii
Guest
You are kidding me! Something that evolved in one environment might not survive in another?
Hold the presses! Newsflash! Ed appears to understand evolution!
No…as you were. He thought that somehow was a point in his favour.
You must spend an enormous amount of money on shoes. Or do you get the bullet holes in whatever you are wearing when you make comments like that repaired somewhere?
E
edwest211
Guest
Nothing evolved. The fruit fly experiment was a failure. My shoes are bullet-proof 
R
rossum
Guest
It is indeed protected, but the protection is not 100%. You agree that adaptation/micro-evolution happens and that involves a change in the DNA coding for, say, finch beaks. Those changes happen despite the protection that is in place. The protection is good, but not perfect. Without that protection there would be a lot more mutations. Even with it in place, mutations do happen.
You have not shown us where these barriers are. You have claimed they exist, but you have not shown us. What we want is a “Thus far and no farther” sign. All you have shown us are general mechanisms to reduce the frequency of mutations, not a specific barrier beyond which mutations cannot pass. It is like a speed limit; you can drive as far as you want, but you cannot drive faster than 30 mph. That is not a barrier in the sense you seem to mean.
So, you have no actual scientific evidence, merely unsupported claims. Thank you for making that clear.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Science can make a Fermi estimate. Each chromosome in the embryo can have either one of the two copies in the parents, That is four possibilities for each chromosome. I don’t know the figure for chimps, but humans embryos have about 75 mutations on top of the DNA they inherit from their parents. All of that can be calculated to give a rough estimate.
Chimps have 24 chromosome pairs, so that is a base of 4^24 = 2.8e14 possibilities maximum. 75 point mutations in a 3 billion base pair genome is a bit less than 3e9^75 = 6e700. That gives a total of 2.8e14 x 6e700 = 1.68e715 possibilities. The majority of the 75 additional mutations will be neutral, so will not have any real effect. Given that, the true figure for real non-neutral differences is probably in the region of 3e20. That well exceeds that human population (7e9), let alone the smaller chimp population. There is still plenty of variation to find.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Since when. I believe the programming that was there at the very beginning allows adaptation.
Remember this:
What is IDvolution?
IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.
B
buffalo
Guest
That is when we see loss of a function once had.
B
buffalo
Guest
And why I stated the research is going on as we speak. Stay tuned.
R
rossum
Guest
Adaptation is evolution. DNA changes to make organisms better adapted to their environment. Finch beaks are just one example.
You have still not shown us any scientific evidence for this barrier you claim exists. Absent any evidence, you will not get support from the science side. Remember we can see no barrier between the first very primitive cell and an onion, which contains more information than a human being.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Consulting my favorite “lying creationist” site once again we see:
Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."
Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Who would have suspected that a handheld genetic test used to unmask sushi bars pawning off tilapia for tuna could deliver deep insights into evolution, including how new species emerge?
Get it - nothing much in between,
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Adaptation is not evolution. The finch beaks return to normal size when things in the environment go back to normal. When a sugar beet grows under ideal conditions, it can yield close to 50% sugar, in poor conditions, a lot less. That’s why grape growers have learned, by trial and error, what kind of conditions (sun, soil, water) are required to grow grapes that have the desired size and taste.
So adaptation is a built-in design feature. Without it, when conditions change, there is nothing there to trigger a temporary modification. If that were the case, most or all of the finches would die.
So adaptation is a built-in design feature. Without it, when conditions change, there is nothing there to trigger a temporary modification. If that were the case, most or all of the finches would die.
B
Bradskii
Guest
So we have this:
Apparently not.
A term you have admitted making up. And when we ask you to define it, you cannot:
So you can’t even make something up to define something you made up in the first instance? Didn’t you think it through before you started making stuff up? Didn’t you think - ‘hey, they might ask me to back this up.’
Apparently not.
B
Bradskii
Guest
‘An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function. Adaptations are well fitted to their function and are produced by natural selection’.
Did the dude say ‘Well fitted’ and ‘natural selection’? Whoa! https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_31
What do those morons know at Berkely! Liberal, atheistic Democrats the lot of them!
B
buffalo
Guest
E
edwest211
Guest
"Well, let’s see. Adaptation is change within a specific limited range of genetic variability. Macroevolution is an all-out no-holds-barred, changes from radically different animal kinds to others. Adaptation is within a given set of genetic limitations. In other words, the genetic information is all there, and is simply expressed slightly differently based on the conditions the organism is facing.
“Macroevolution sees no true genetic limitations. Smaller microevolutionary changes are extrapolated as a means to demonstrate that larger more extensive changes have happened. However, this extrapolation is founded on the speculation that natural selection and mutation are all that we need to move evolution along, that great amounts of new complex specified information can be generated by completely random means. At it’s core the difference between the two is that in one all the information is readily available to the organism, and some cases, scant new metabolic functions gained. In the other there are massive transformations with new complex specified genetic information that must be generated through completely random means.”
“Macroevolution sees no true genetic limitations. Smaller microevolutionary changes are extrapolated as a means to demonstrate that larger more extensive changes have happened. However, this extrapolation is founded on the speculation that natural selection and mutation are all that we need to move evolution along, that great amounts of new complex specified information can be generated by completely random means. At it’s core the difference between the two is that in one all the information is readily available to the organism, and some cases, scant new metabolic functions gained. In the other there are massive transformations with new complex specified genetic information that must be generated through completely random means.”
E
edwest211
Guest
And they are most likely, white males. Most of them.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Dear me. Dear, dear me. What can one honestly say…
B
buffalo
Guest
File:Circle - black simple.svg - Wikimedia Commons
R
rossum
Guest
Yes, there are gaps between species. There is a gap between London and New York. There is no impassable barrier between the two. A gap is not a barrier; a barrier is not a gap.
How big is the gap between a tiger and a lion? They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. How big is the gap between a horse and a donkey? They can interbreed and produce live offspring.
The science is correct. You are misinterpreting it.
Still no evidence for your claimed barrier.
rossum
B
Bradskii
Guest
I think he might have admitted defeat in that regard… He just posted a big, fat zero.
Last edited:
- Status