Jump to content


Photo

Question: What Part Of Evolution Do Yecs Not Understand?


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#81 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 August 2010 - 08:26 AM

So, are you saying the Lederberg experiment results macroevolution?


The Lederberg experiment demonstrates the emergence of a beneficial trait that can only have happened through a mutation rather than through adaptation (as you state in post 73). The trait then spread through the population by natural selection, the core evolutionary mechanism. The experiment does not focus on any splitting of gene pools, interruption of gene flow and subsequent divergence of populations which is the reason given for the great diversity seen over large-scale evolution. Many papers have been written recording such speciation processes.

So are you saying the observation of DNA being successfully used to establish relationships, evidence admissible in some courts supports macroevolution?
So are you saying establishing phylogeny using the same techniques and principles supports macroevolution?

View Post


Phylogeny certainly supports common ancestry and is more than faith given the successful application of its underlying principles in other fields.

#82 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 05 August 2010 - 09:09 PM

The Lederberg experiment demonstrates the emergence of a beneficial trait that can only have happened through a mutation rather than through adaptation (as you state in post 73).  The trait then spread through the population by natural selection, the core evolutionary mechanism.  The experiment does not focus on any splitting of gene pools, interruption of gene flow and subsequent divergence of populations which is the reason given for the great diversity seen over large-scale evolution.  Many papers have been written recording such speciation processes.


In bacteria, as in people, successful mating requires that the two individuals be compatible. Compatible does not mean exact same. They grow protein structures with combinations which allow them to remain as a bacteria. So if something inter-react with the protein structure, various results may form. Some bacteria with a certain form of protein structure may be destroyed. Some not. That may not necessarily shows a mutation at all. That could mean the variations of bacteria within the bacteria species.

More or less like when you spray some poisons to a crowd of humans, some of them are killed and some not. This depends on alot of factors concerning the reactions happened inside a human body, not necessarily a result of mutation of any kind.

Phylogeny certainly supports common ancestry and is more than faith given the successful application of its underlying principles in other fields.

View Post


What application are you talking about?

#83 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 06 August 2010 - 03:41 AM

What application are you talking about?

View Post


It's called the action of presupposition. You can just as easily state that Phylogeny certainly supports common design is more than faith given the successful application of its underlying principles in other fields. And have just as much convincing evidence, and just as much faith involved as Tommy is using.

The difference is that he refuses to accept the belief system built into his own faith statements.

I take that back… It actually takes more faith, from a materialistic standpoint, to believe in. What is really ironic here, is the fact that second half of the word phylogenetics, is γενετικός, (or genetikos) tranlated is “relative to birth” from the word γένεσις (Genesis). It would be fun to go into the whole “Genesis” ties here, and the materialistic evolutionist’s penchant to shy away from the “Genesis” of evolution. But, the materialists will soon attempt to posit logical fallacies (as were done on many other threads of this forum) to wriggle out of these facts (and their associated ironies).


The bottom line here is that Tommy is arguing for Macroevolution. And he is doing so with absolutely NO hard evidence. He is simply using presupposition, innuendo and faith statements to do so. He also knows this is against the forum rules, and therefore is attempting to be as vague as possible, in order to bend those rules to his wishes.

#84 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2010 - 06:11 PM

In bacteria, as in people, successful mating requires that the two individuals be compatible. Compatible does not mean exact same. They grow protein structures with combinations which allow them to remain as a bacteria. So if something inter-react with the protein structure, various results may form. Some bacteria with a certain form of protein structure may be destroyed. Some not. That may not necessarily shows a mutation at all. That could mean the variations of bacteria within the bacteria species.


The bacteria bred assexually which is how they could be bred from a single individual. This individual had no resistance to antibiotics. If some subsequent decendents had structures that rendered them resistant and others did not then you have evidence for a mutation emerging that led to the resistant trait.

What application are you talking about?

View Post


Paternity testing, forensic DNA analysis etc.

#85 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2010 - 06:29 PM

It's called the action of presupposition. You can just as easily state that Phylogeny certainly supports common design is more than faith given the successful application of its underlying principles in other fields. And have just as much convincing evidence, and just as much faith involved as Tommy is using.


Genetic similarities show species falling into nested hierarchies like a family tree thus inferring common ancestry. I don't see wherein lies the leap of faith. If all species shared common design then the designing agent would have worked in such a fashion as to leave us with the appearance of common ancestry.

The difference is that he refuses to accept the belief system built into his own faith statements.


You have stopped discussing adaptation and are now falling back on general assertions, evolution-is-a-faith etc.

The bottom line here is that Tommy is arguing for Macroevolution. And he is doing so with absolutely NO hard evidence. He is simply using presupposition, innuendo and faith statements to do so. He also knows this is against the forum rules, and therefore is attempting to be as vague as possible, in order to bend those rules to his wishes.

View Post


I offered phylogeny as empirical support for large-scale evolution (the data is, after all, able to effect our senses). On reviewing the rules and FAQ I see that claiming micro = macroevolution is prohibited and I know claiming macro as a fact is also punishable. In this thread, however, I have been discussing the role of mutations in evolutionary theory. This site defines evolution in terms of molecules-to-man so anyone here who subscribes to evolution from me to Tharock to Javabean is going to think in terms of large-scale evolution.

Where have I been vague or used innuendo?

#86 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 08 August 2010 - 02:55 PM

None of the regular posters, creationist or otherwise, appear to have a comprehensive, in depth understanding of evolutionary biology. We all know bits and pieces.

I think what happens is that evolutionists become frustrated when creationists won't accept a basic concept of evolution, if only for the sake of discussion. There are lots of examples, but here's just one:

Evolution is random.

We can agrue at length whether this is true or not (and we have), but the long and short of it is that the ToE says it is not random, like it or not. It would be great if someone would say, 'okay, I don't necessarily agree, but let's go with it for argument's sake'. Instead, we get stuck here and the discussion goes nowhere.

View Post


I haven't heard any educated YEC's say evolution is random, because of natural selection. The theory makes sense as a part of adaptation for me. But many, even some atheists and agnostics see an ineffective mechanism in mutation.

As you know Mutations are changes in our DNA that are deviations from an original sequence causing the "machine to run differently." I was just reading a paper this morning on pleiotropy. I don't have time to go into detail, but the jist is that genes work together. A mutation in one, though it may be beneficial, causes problems in other areas. They have actually classified different types of pleiotropy. I'll put it at the bottom of this post.

The idea for me and other creationists-- that it is way too difficult to come up with transitions so many times that they would not die off completely. Simply because of genetic malfunction and secondary problems. This itself would stop transition from going to a completely different phenotype.

1. Artefactual pleiotropy, in which adjacent but functionally unrelated genes are affected by a single mutation, such as when two genes are located next to each other on a chromosome and a mutation in one affects the other. Hodgkin claimed that organisms with “compact, gene-dense genomes will be especially susceptible to artefactual pleiotropies” (1998, p. 502). This observation indicates that pleiotropy may be more of an impediment in simpler and more primitive organisms. An example is the Drosophila claret-nondisjunction mutation that causes both eye color abnormalities and meiosis nondisjunction.

2. Secondary pleiotropy, or “relational pleiotropy,” involves a single mutation causing biochemical alterations that produce changes affecting many structural changes. An example is a mutation causing phenylketonurea, a defect in a liver enzyme (phenylalanine hydroxylase) that causes a deficiency in axon myelination. It leads to numerous health defects, including mental retardation (Hodgkin, 1998, p. 502). Secondary pleiotropy is especially common in complex, long-lived organisms, and consequently presents a major problem for the evolution of “higher” creatures.

3. Adoptive, or exaptational pleiotropy, is the situation whereby one gene product is used for very different biochemical reactions in different tissues. An example Hodgkin gave is crystalline protein that is not only the most abundant protein in the eye lens but also is used for structural roles in other tissues such as smooth muscle.

4. Parsimonious pleiotropy is the case in which one enzyme is used to catalyze the same chemical reaction in many different tissues and organ systems or is used in different biochemical pathways. An example is that the same enzymes are used in very different branches of a biochemical pathway that synthesizes isoleucine and valine.

5. Opportunistic pleiotropy is an event whereby one regulatory protein serves an important role with other cell or tissue types in addition to its main functions. The example Hodgkin used is the control elements sisB and runt on the x chromosome that cause problems early in development and which genes are also used in later stages of growth, such as during secondary S@xual development.

6. Combinatorial pleiotropy is a case of one gene product interacting with different proteins in different cell types and being used in several different ways that result in distinct variations. A large number of examples exist, including most transcription factors, which cause a very different biochemical activity, depending on where they interact with the genome. As a result, mutations affecting this protein “have multiple and often very diverse effects on a wide variety of tissues” (Hodgkin, 1998, p. 503).

7. Unifying pleiotropy is a phenomenon whereby one gene or cluster of adjacent genes encodes multiple proteins that have common or related biological functions. Examples include various structural components, binding domains and enzymes. As a result, mutations in genes in this category “have complex physiological consequences, which may be hard to explain if the underlying biology is not understood” ( Hodgkin, J. 1998. Seven types of pleiotropy. International Journal of Developmental Biology.  p. 503). Cited by Jerry Bergman in this article.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users