Jump to content


Photo

Protein Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

#21 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 05 January 2010 - 04:12 PM

When looking at the complexity within a cell it's worth keeping in mind the following:
1) single-cell life reproduces quickly and with vast populations,
2) the conventional chronology offers hundreds of millions of years of adaptation before the emergence of multicellular life,
3) the incremental steps of selection serve as a bias towards what works for each generation so the current product is considerably more elaborate than had all components been assembled to fulfill the current function.

View Post



Hi Tommy,

I noticed when people who believe in evolution they discuss the theory in broad brush stokes. That small incremental changes will cumulative into something very elaborate. It sounds so easy.

IMO we need to be more specific and break down the steps required to from step A to step B. The steps may look like the following:

1. Qualitative analysis: How many mutations would it take to get from step A-> B.

2. Exactly what mutations are essential: We can reverse engineer and lay out a map of exactly where and what mutations are needed. We can be flexible and say that hydrophobic amino acids can be interchanged at a specific position for example. That way we can increase the probability of something occurring.

3. Chronological order: Since the process is building on each prior step we could lay down some kind of chronological order when the mutations occurred.

4. Quantitative analysis: We have large number of organisms where we can determine what are the odds of getting a positive mutation. For example, a person with malaria will have ~ a trillion parasites and there are sever hundred million people infected every year for the past several decades. That is a large enough sample to determine what mutation and natural selection can and can not do.

5. Determine how much time is required: Based on the information above determine how much time it will take go from step A---> B. We can do this by dynamic simulation or Markov chains.

6. Check our hypothetical biological pathway with the facts. Do we have anyway to substantiate that the biological pathway could have occurred either by the fossil record, DNA sequencing or some other method?


For example, what steps are need to move from a Prokaryotic to a Eukaryotic Cell. Or maybe we could create a biological pathway of how the ribosomes changed:

The ribosome, which is responsible for the synthesis of all cellular proteins, itself is comprised of two distinct subunits that contain in all some 55 proteins and three ribosomal RNAs in the simplest (bacterial) form and about 75 proteins and 4 ribosomal RNAs in the eukaryotic form.


This is life at its most elemental form and yet it is very sophisticated. The steps required to from step A ---> B is substantial.

My point is that building something elaborate sounds easy but when is broken down into specifics it becomes very difficult if not impossible. IMHO a proven theory should move beyond abstracts and create defined pathways that are backed up with observed facts.

Bruce

#22 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 January 2010 - 04:32 PM

And yet there is absolutely no empirical evidence of one species evolving into another.  In other words; no fish to land animal to whale evolution, only speculatory and pre-suppositional  modeling.


Speciation can be observed during our lifetime (http://www.biomedcen.../1471-2148/5/17) - as undramatic yet observable as continental drift. Observation of the dicontinuous distribution of similar species across a geographically interrupted habitat (e.g. different primates in the African, American and Asian tropical forests) supports the diverging, discrete gene pools breeding significant diversity (as predicted by the pattern of phylogenetics).

More mere speculation, with no empirical scientific evidence (and also equivocation according to the forum rules).


I guess age of the Earth issues should be discussed in their appropriate forum (the poster tharock seems to be a professional in the field of earth sciences so would make a good contributor). I have read the rules and can't see what I have done wrong.

Who is doing the selecting?


Pressure from the environment and its finite resources (just as a market selects the most competitive producer).

From whom is the bias originating?


Due to the condition I mention above there is a statistical trend that those trends more beneficial to the holder will predominate.

Who is doing the assembling of all of these “elaborate” “components”?

View Post


No one, the components aren't elaborate in my comment. Populations evolve and function of a trait can change due to circumstance.

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 January 2010 - 05:59 PM

Speciation can be observed during our lifetime (http://www.biomedcen.../1471-2148/5/17) - as undramatic yet observable as continental drift.  Observation of the dicontinuous distribution of similar species across a geographically interrupted habitat (e.g. different primates in the African, American and Asian tropical forests) supports the diverging, discrete gene pools breeding significant diversity (as predicted by the pattern of phylogenetics).

View Post

After checking your reference Tommy I failed to notice where a fish crawled out on land and became a dog, or a snail, or monkey (etc…) Sorry, you didn’t provide empirical evidence of evolution.

I guess age of the Earth issues should be discussed in their appropriate forum (the poster tharock seems to be a professional in the field of earth sciences so would make a good contributor).  I have read the rules and can't see what I have done wrong.

View Post

You need to go back and check your post (see below), age of the Earth wasn’t the rule violation (although it is speculation) you are speculating that multi-cellular macro-evolved from “something” due to the speculatory hundreds of millions of years of adaptation.

the conventional chronology offers hundreds of millions of years of adaptation before the emergence of multicellular life,

View Post

This is “Highly” speculative, and against the forum rules: http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm
Check bullet comment nine of the forum rules. You can posit all the a priori years you wish, but when you insulate “macro” you are violating said rule.


Pressure from the environment and its finite resources (just as a market selects the most competitive producer).

View Post

Sorry Tommy, the market doesn’t select anything, people deciding what they want to buy does . But it does prove design…

#24 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 05 January 2010 - 06:10 PM

Speciation can be observed during our lifetime (http://www.biomedcen.../1471-2148/5/17) - as undramatic yet observable as continental drift.  Observation of the dicontinuous distribution of similar species across a geographically interrupted habitat (e.g. different primates in the African, American and Asian tropical forests) supports the diverging, discrete gene pools breeding significant diversity (as predicted by the pattern of phylogenetics).


link

Test for speciation:

1. Verify that the proposed evolutionary pathway was actualized in history;

2. Show how new evidence from fossils and homologies are found that conforms to our specific expectations, based on the proven evolution pathways;

3. Describe the the evolution pathway of this transition and its intermediate steps. Each step should be fully described at both the genetic and the morphological level: that is we should be specific about what mutations, lateral gene transfers, or other processes have occurred, and how the new genotype is expressed in morphology.

4. Each environmental step needs to be specified, and the tools of population genetics employed to show that the hypothetical new genotype would in fact be selected over its rivals in the hypothetical environment.

Is there anything like this for the cichlid fish?

#25 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 05 January 2010 - 06:22 PM

Speciation can be observed during our lifetime (http://www.biomedcen.../1471-2148/5/17) - as undramatic yet observable as continental drift.  Observation of the dicontinuous distribution of similar species across a geographically interrupted habitat (e.g. different primates in the African, American and Asian tropical forests) supports the diverging, discrete gene pools breeding significant diversity (as predicted by the pattern of phylogenetics).

View Post


A previous post of mine.

Thank you for all the links and information. It is very interesting. I looked up the Chichlid fishes and have the following questions:


Question 1: Are all these various fishes, are they are still cichlid bony fish?

Question 2: The data is a surprising diversity of fish in a lake. Do evolutions know how they diverged, when they diverged, what they diverged from, or why they diverge any more than any other group?

Question 3: All the examples the variation appear to be variations within kinds. Some are even examples caused by degradation, not evolution

LINKS about evolution of Cichlid fish in African Lakes

National Geographic

First Plos link



The speed of which this evolution occurred was repeated in all the articles.


The rapid evolution of African cichlid fish driven by strong divergent selection is revealed in a gene that influences both ecological adaptation and mate choice, in keeping with ecological by-product speciation.


This creates several challenges for restoring historical relationships because: 1) there is little time for mutation to alter the DNA sequence of each species and conduct phylogenetic analysis and 2) there has not been enough time for new variant genes to become fixed between instances of speciation (incomplete lineage sorting). This means that although phylogenetic trees derived from DNA sequences accurately represent the history of genes, they do not necessarily reflect the history of the populations in which the variants are found.


Plos Link


Creationists and Intelligent design also believe that it doesn’t take long for genetic variation and the environment to produce the variety of species we see as long as it is variation within kind. Most species, like dogs, have enormous degrees of variability within kind. Moreover, because the variation happened so fast it probably was do to Mendelian variation not evolution. Mendelian variation is fast, evolution is slow.

If the answer to question above are:

1) The fish are still Cichlid bony fish;

2) evolutions know not know how they diverged, when they diverged, what they diverged from, or why they diverge any more than any other group

Than this is not the kind of evolution that can be extrapolated into Darwin’s tree of life.

Posted Image

#26 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 January 2010 - 09:07 PM

I noticed when people who believe in evolution they discuss the theory in broad brush stokes.  That  small incremental changes will cumulative into something very elaborate.  It sounds so easy.

IMO we need to be more specific and break down the steps required to from step A to step B.  The steps may look like the following...

View Post


Bruce,

Quite a few comments springing from my musing! I hope we aren't derailing Jason's thread. I talk in broad brush strokes as I don't have much technical knowledge about cell biology or chemistry, I just threw my thoughts in for what they are worth.

I would be highly impressed if it were possible to quantify such a pathway, would be quite a feather in the cap for the MES. However, I fear that biology falls just on the wrong side of the divide between chemisty/physics and the other sciences. Scientists dealing with structures larger than simple molecules can often only predict statistical trends rather than specific quantifiable values due to system complexity, long chains of causation and that structural uniqueness (as contrasted with identical elementary particles) that derives from a composition of variables.

No idea how many mutations any change would necessitate. The specific evolutionary product of a pathway from A to B would surely have a very small probability of occuring out of all possibilities (though not zero). It needs to be remembered that evolution by its nature has no specific direction. A self-replicating cell could have evolved in many ways using different chemicals and so the improbability of a functioning cell evolving reduces.

I'll get a chance to read through your links this weekend. Thanks for the feedback.

#27 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 05 January 2010 - 11:26 PM

Bruce,

Quite a few comments springing from my musing!  I hope we aren't derailing Jason's thread.  I talk in broad brush strokes as I don't have much technical knowledge about cell biology or chemistry, I just threw my thoughts in for what they are worth.

I would be highly impressed if it were possible to quantify such a pathway, would be quite a feather in the cap for the MES.  However, I fear that biology falls just on the wrong side of the divide between chemisty/physics and the other sciences.  Scientists dealing with structures larger than simple molecules can often only predict statistical trends rather than specific quantifiable values due to system complexity, long chains of causation and that structural uniqueness (as contrasted with identical elementary particles) that derives from a composition of variables. 

No idea how many mutations any change would necessitate.  The specific evolutionary product of a pathway from A to B would surely have a very small probability of occuring out of all possibilities (though not zero).  It needs to be remembered that evolution by its nature has no specific direction.  A self-replicating cell could have evolved in many ways using different chemicals and so the improbability of a functioning cell evolving reduces.

I'll get a chance to read through your links this weekend.  Thanks for the feedback.

View Post


Hi Tommy,

I hope we aren't derailing Jason's thread.


I shouldn't speak for Jason, but I believe he has a real love for Jesus and truth. He is in this thread because many are mislead toward atheism because of the 1/2 truths that evolution provides. That Religion drives science, and it matters. BTW this is a good, but somewhat technical thread, whose theme is "Religion drives science and it matters"

I would be highly impressed if it were possible to quantify such a pathway, would be quite a feather in the cap for the MES.  However, I fear that biology falls just on the wrong side of the divide between chemisty/physics and the other sciences.  Scientists dealing with structures larger than simple molecules can often only predict statistical trends rather than specific quantifiable values due to system complexity, long chains of causation and that structural uniqueness (as contrasted with identical elementary particles) that derives from a composition of variables. 


Scientist have been trying to work out biological pathways and we can quantify what is required to go from one incremental step to another. The problem is that the numbers become statistically untenable to many evolutionist. Some evolutionist, like Dawkins, when confronted with the data simply throws up his hands and says it nothing more than a "God in the gaps" analogy. So any scientific analysis that disproves evolution is thrown out simply because it disproves evolution.

No idea how many mutations any change would necessitate.  The specific evolutionary product of a pathway from A to B would surely have a very small probability of occuring out of all possibilities (though not zero).  It needs to be remembered that evolution by its nature has no specific direction.  A self-replicating cell could have evolved in many ways using different chemicals and so the improbability of a functioning cell evolving reduces.


Actually there are cases where the probability of something evolving is zero. For example, ATP which is the energy molecule required for many biological reactions. You need ATP to create ATP which is true chicken versus egg scenario.

Here is a relatively new article about self replicating molecules that show that there we really don't know how self replicating molecules could have evolved. This is from an evolution friendly publication and the authors are evolutionist.

Lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks: A constraint on the metabolism-first path to the origin of life

I particularly like this this a paragraph.

In sharp contrast with template-dependent replication dynamics, we demonstrate here that replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations).  We conclude that this fundamental limitation of ensemble replicators cautions against metabolism-first theories of the origin of life, although ancient metabolic systems could have provided a stable habitat within which polymer replicators later evolved.


Both schools acknowledge that a critical requirement for primitive evolvable systems (in the Darwinian sense) is to solve the problems of information storage and reliable information transmission.  Disagreement starts, however, in the way information was first stored.  All present life is based on digitally encoded information in polynucleotide strings, but difficulties with the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides and clear-cut routes to an RNA world (but see ref. 6), wherein RNA molecules had the dual role of catalysts and information storage systems, have provided continuous fuel for objections to the genetics-first scenario.


Basically you can’t get inheritance without accurate information storage and retrieval. The threshold to avoid error catastrophe is too demanding.


I really love this paragraph.

The unfortunate usage of words with clear Darwinian connotations—such as adaptation, fitness landscape, and coevolution—in the realm of pre-Darwinian systems cannot be overemphasized.


It was nice for them to chastise their brethren for misapplying Darwinian terms to chemicals

#28 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 06 January 2010 - 05:12 AM

When looking at the complexity within a cell it's worth keeping in mind the following:
1) single-cell life reproduces quickly and with vast populations,

and so what ?

2) the conventional chronology offers hundreds of millions of years of adaptation before the emergence of multicellular life,


it´s irrelevant if the mechanism is not capable of doing the job

3) the incremental steps of selection serve as a bias towards what works for each generation so the current product is considerably more elaborate than had all components been assembled to fulfill the current function.

View Post


You cannot assume that happens. It´s up to you to prove that is possible.You can demonstrate that, showing us the evolution of any biologic structure, mutation by mutation. Can you ?

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 January 2010 - 05:28 AM

it´s irrelevant if the mechanism is not capable of doing the job
You cannot assume that happens. It´s up to you to prove that is possible.You can demonstrate that, showing us the evolution of any biologic structure, mutation by mutation. Can you ?

View Post


Deadlock, the statements you're responding to are typical evolutionist religionists (though they’ll vehemently deny this) faith posits. They’ll grasp at anything, add millions of years, then “wah-lah” you have evidence for macro-evolution!

No real empirical observation involved (or needed) when you can piece bones together (sometimes entire artist’s renderings from mere fragments), stack them side-by-side and pretend they’re sequentially significant. Or, watching micro organisms do what they’re designed to do, then multiply by millions or billions of years of un-observed non-scientific a priori opinion and (again) “wah-lah” you have evidence for macro-evolution!

#30 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 January 2010 - 05:34 AM

A previous post of mine.

Thank you for all the links and information. It is very interesting. I looked up the Chichlid fishes and have the following questions:
Question 1: Are all these various fishes, are they are still cichlid bony fish?

Question 2: The data is a surprising diversity of fish in a lake. Do evolutions know how they diverged, when they diverged, what they diverged from, or why they diverge any more than any other group?

Question 3: All the examples the variation appear to be variations within kinds. Some are even examples caused by degradation, not evolution

LINKS about evolution of Cichlid fish in African Lakes

National Geographic

First Plos link
The speed of which this evolution occurred was repeated in all the articles.
This creates several challenges for restoring historical relationships because: 1) there is little time for mutation to alter the DNA sequence of each species and conduct phylogenetic analysis and 2) there has not been enough time for new variant genes to become fixed between instances of speciation (incomplete lineage sorting). This means that although phylogenetic trees derived from DNA sequences accurately represent the history of genes, they do not necessarily reflect the history of the populations in which the variants are found.
Plos Link
Creationists and Intelligent design also believe that it doesn’t take long for genetic variation and the environment to produce the variety of species we see as long as it is variation within kind. Most species, like dogs, have enormous degrees of variability within kind. Moreover, because the variation happened so fast it probably was do to Mendelian variation not evolution. Mendelian variation is fast, evolution is slow.

If the answer to question above are:

1) The fish are still Cichlid bony fish;

2) evolutions know not know how they diverged, when they diverged, what they diverged from, or why they diverge any more than any other group

Than this is not the kind of evolution that can be extrapolated into Darwin’s tree of life.

Posted Image

View Post


I find it amazing Bruce, what evolutionists will attempt to pass off as speciation. Anyway, if we notice, these are still (as you pointed out) bony fish. But, again, if we posit millions (or billions) of years (bereft of any empiricism) we can somehow promulgate they’ll evolve into werewolves or unicorns.

But, if we follow the observable facts, proteins remain proteins, fish remain fish, and man remains man.

#31 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2010 - 10:14 AM

Sorry Tommy, the market doesn’t select anything, people deciding what they want to buy does . But it does prove design…

View Post


The market analogy was meant to convey the culling effect of cumulative pressures in an environment of scarcities. I was treating “market” as the aggregate of a community of buyers and sellers. I would liken market forces (and election results) to the outcomes of multiple inputs and thus more comparable to material causation than a single, subjective designer.

Actually there are cases where the probability of something evolving is zero.  For example,  ATP which is the energy molecule required for many biological reactions.  You need ATP to create ATP which is true chicken versus egg scenario.

View Post


A probability could only be zero were it a logical impossibility (i.e. an inherent contradiction). ATP might be synthesized independently of the recursive effect of further ATP production. It is the nature of self-replication that you need a duck to make a duck (and no I’m not implying ducks can’t evolve).

It´s up to you to prove that is possible.You can demonstrate that, showing us the evolution of any biologic structure, mutation by mutation. Can you ?

View Post


I fancy I could were you to train me up in DNA analysis and lend me your time machine. Why do I think it would be possible? – because observation in the present of phylogenetic data and the distribution of species resonates with the consequences of the TOE.

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 January 2010 - 11:15 AM

The market analogy was meant to convey the culling effect of cumulative pressures in an environment of scarcities.  I was treating “market” as the aggregate of a community of buyers and sellers.  I would liken market forces (and election results) to the outcomes of multiple inputs and thus more comparable to material causation than a single, subjective designer.

View Post


Design is design, regardless of the designer (or designers). And the market forces drive the market. What, then, drives the outcome of this material causation you are promulgating?

#33 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 06 January 2010 - 02:58 PM

I fancy I could were you to train me up in DNA analysis and lend me your time machine.  Why do I think it would be possible? – because observation in the present of phylogenetic data and the distribution of species resonates with the consequences of the TOE.

View Post


So your science is based on blind faith.You think it is possible because of your biased interpretation of the data.I dont think that´s the way science works.You must prove the mechanism works.

Can you give me any phylogenetic data which cannot be explained by the intelligent design model ?

If you cant do the job then you can quote any scientist you wish.

#34 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 06 January 2010 - 03:57 PM

A probability could only be zero were it a logical impossibility (i.e. an inherent contradiction).  ATP might be synthesized independently of the recursive effect of further ATP production.  It is the nature of self-replication that you need a duck to make a duck (and no I’m not implying ducks can’t evolve).

View Post



Hi Tommy,

OOFF- good points. I was wrong about ATP.

My Bad.

#35 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2010 - 04:43 PM

So your science is based on blind faith.You think it is possible because of your biased interpretation of the data.I dont think that´s the way science works.You must prove the mechanism works.

Can you give me any phylogenetic data which cannot be explained by the intelligent design model ?

If you cant do the job then you can quote any scientist you wish.

View Post


I won't be discussing anything with someone who accuses me of blind faith and bias and tells me what I can do and what I have to prove.

#36 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2010 - 04:53 PM

Design is design, regardless of the designer (or designers). And the market forces drive the market. What, then, drives the outcome of this material causation you are promulgating?

View Post


The drive behind material causation is energy transfer. Where does energy come from? Naturalist lines of thought treat the matter as wrapped up with the origin of spacetime and focus on vacuums and the smallest scale. I would like to have posted a youtube video of Alan Guth, one of my heroes, explaining the inflationary epoch but I think we're diverging from the OP enough already. Alternatively, one might propose a supernatural origin of energy.

#37 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 January 2010 - 06:08 PM

The drive behind material causation is energy transfer.  Where does energy come from?  Naturalist lines of thought treat the matter as wrapped up with the origin of spacetime and focus on vacuums and the smallest scale.  I would like to have posted a youtube video of Alan Guth, one of my heroes, explaining the inflationary epoch but I think we're diverging from the OP enough already.  Alternatively, one might propose a supernatural origin of energy.

View Post


SOooooo, energy has a mind of its own and can drive the evolutionary process? Or, can I just throw energy on the ground and evolution happens? It seems you’re presupposing a bit much!

This isn’t diverging from the OP… You’ve made some seemingly fallacious assertions concerning the OP that you either need to answer cogently, or not use.

#38 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 06 January 2010 - 08:48 PM

The drive behind material causation is energy transfer.  Where does energy come from?  Naturalist lines of thought treat the matter as wrapped up with the origin of spacetime and focus on vacuums and the smallest scale.  I would like to have posted a youtube video of Alan Guth, one of my heroes, explaining the inflationary epoch but I think we're diverging from the OP enough already.  Alternatively, one might propose a supernatural origin of energy.

View Post



Hi Tommy,

I am very interested in the video and your POV. Maybe you could start a thread or find some way to share it with us.

Bruce

#39 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 January 2010 - 10:36 PM

I find it amazing Bruce, what evolutionists will attempt to pass off as speciation. Anyway, if we notice, these are still (as you pointed out) bony fish. But, again, if we posit millions (or billions) of years (bereft of any empiricism) we can somehow promulgate they’ll evolve into werewolves or unicorns.

But, if we follow the observable facts, proteins remain proteins, fish remain fish, and man remains man.


If you have an eye for detail,then you'll notice that speciation has'nt even occured in those Chichlid's no more than a bulldog is a different species from a collie.Speciation can't be determined by morphological variation alone.


Enjoy.

#40 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 January 2010 - 11:00 PM

Creationists and Intelligent design also believe that it doesn’t take long for genetic variation and the environment to produce the variety of species we see as long as it is variation within kind. Most species, like dogs, have enormous degrees of variability within kind. Moreover, because the variation happened so fast it probably was do to Mendelian variation not evolution. Mendelian variation is fast, evolution is slow.


Flood critics have always been quick to use the Darwinian straw man of slow gradual change to aledgedly falsify the possibility of rapid divergence after the flood,but experimental science rather than speculation always proves them wrong.

ScienceDaily (Apr. 18, 2008) — In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.”

Researchers returned to the islands twice a year for three years, in the spring and summer of 2004, 2005 and 2006. Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass.Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.


http://www.scienceda...80417112433.htm


Note how much morphilogical changes occured without any genetic mutations.



Enjoy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users