Primitive snakes

[JimmyDavid]

What are you talking about ? Darwin's theory has been questioned so much lately.
Another thing: How come it's an undeniable fact that genes don't change?
Scientists have only scratched the surface of what's involved in that. Nothing is "undeniable" at this point, just yet.
A mutation is a ramdom change, the chances of it to bless you with the EXACT traits you need to survive are close to nothing. How can you blame the entire history of evolution on that?

[Removed_2815]

I am having a hard time reading just what it is you're saying. I'm getting a headache trying to make sense of it all.

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
Darwin's theory has been questioned so much lately.

Darwin's theory has always been questioned; with regards to creation vs. evolution. What part of Darwin's theory is being questioned by evolutionists?

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
Another thing: How come it's an undeniable fact that genes don't change?

Genes do change, who said they don't?

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
Scientists have only scratched the surface of what's involved in that. Nothing is "undeniable" at this point, just yet.

Most of the revelations in genetics are undeniable. We're talking about biochemistry here; these biological processes obey accepted "chemical" laws and successful chemical designs are used over and over in these processes.

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
A mutation is a ramdom change, the chances of it to bless you with the EXACT traits you need to survive are close to nothing. How can you blame the entire history of evolution on that?

Evolution is blind, there is no set goal. I never proposed a teleological basis. It's all random. If you believe that there is some divine scheme then that's fine but perhaps that is why your evolutionary arguments are falling short.
Evolution is in it's essence a series of random events. Have a look at Stephen Jay Gould's work on contingency. If we were to do it all over again, there's no guarantee that a human-like creature would evolve, in fact, it's unlikely.

Cheers,
Ryan

The history of life is not necessarily progressive; it is certainly not predictable. The earth's creatures have evolved through a series of contingent and fortuitous events. - the late Stephen Jay Gould

[tdherper]

Very informative thread, JimmyDavid, you seem to not want to evolve past the fact you are mistaken.....

[Cake]

How come it's an undeniable fact that genes don't change

Even if you were able to change the gentic makeup of your leg muscles, by increasing thier mass and strength, this would not affect what you pass on to future generations. The genetic material that you pass on to your children is contained in your gonads. Whether it be testes or ovary. The makeup of these cells is desiganted early in development when the germ cells migrate to thier respective orgaizing regions. It is simply impossible for you to change the genetic makeup makeup of these cells via exercising. You simply play the hand you are delt and if your hand is better than the next persons, you win and get to reproduce.

JimmyDavid I think you may be misinterpreting the term genetic flexibilty to be that it applies on the level of the individual. This is not true. Genetic flexibility applies at the population level. I will attempt to show this by use of the famous example of beak size in Darwins Finches.

A population of finches has a range in beak size from small to large. The small size beaks are specialized for consuming small seeds, while the large size are specialized for consuming large seeds. Inbetween these two extremes there is a range beak sizes which corespond to being a generalist feeders which cannot consume the largest for the smallest seeds, survive by consuming the mid range in sizes. Beak size is a heritable trait. One year there is a severe drought resulting in the production of a large amount of small seeds, and only a few large ones. The finches which posses small beaks are better adapted for this environment while the birds with large beaks are not and the majority of large beaks die off. Birds in the mid range of beak size do ok but not particularily well. This results next year with more birds that posses small beaks mating and thus the genes for small beaks are passed on and not that of large beaks. There is still a representive of the large beaked population present, representing along with the few remaining midranged sized beaked birds the genetic flexibility of the population. Now as long as the food source stays some what the same, the large beaked offspring are less likely to survive to reproduce then their small beaked counterparts. The individuals with midranged beak size do decent and some do survive to reproduce, maintaining the gentetic flexibility of the population.

The population now consists of the majority being small beaked, some midrange beaked, and only a few large beaked. Further selection pressures could also affect the populations such as more moisture content in one region than another resulting in larger seeds for the larger beaked birds. Thus they geographically isolate from the small beaked birds and then become reproductively isolated, resulting in a speciation event.

[CamHanna]

Originally posted by Cake
Even if you were able to change the gentic makeup of your leg muscles, by increasing thier mass and strength, this would not affect what you pass on to future generations.

Perhaps I am misreading this quotation, but I feel obligated to point out that, while physically you can change through exercise, you cannot change your genetics. Even the "genetic makeup of your leg muscles" remains the same; the legs only change physically. You are correct, large leg muscles from exercise are non-heritable.

[Cake]

I think I may not have written that segment clearly. I intended to point out that you cannot change your gentic make up. BUT(and that is a huge BUT) if it were possible, the change would be localized and would not affect the genes included in any produced gametes.

[JimmyDavid]

RMBolton, what i said doesn't sound like divine work. It's when a a reptile happens to gain very usefull wings out of a "random" mutation that it starts to sound like that.
You have been reading too much x-men comics.

[CamHanna]

Sorry Cake, I just skipped right over the IF part of that statement. No hard feelings I hope.

[JimmyDavid]

Food for thought: If evolution depends on mutations, that means everything you GAIN needs a mutation, what about everything you lose? Are boids waiting for a mutation that finally removes bone remains from them? why did birds lose their teeth? another mutation? Why don't we have remains of scales, tails, strange bones, fangs or other strange traits from the past creatures that we once were? A handy mutation took care of all that for us?
The more i think of all that, the more i believe that you develop what you use and lose what you don't need. And for that to work, your genetics must be somewhat changed by the time you breed, otherwise there would be no species evolution only individual.

Another fact: a mutation is a flaw (physical handycap), and most of the times mutated creatures are sterile.

[Cake]

No worries CamHanna, when I read it back to myself it wasn't very clear.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
If evolution depends on mutations, that means everything you GAIN needs a mutation, what about everything you lose? why did birds lose their teeth? another mutation? Why don't we have remains of scales, tails, strange bones, fangs or other strange traits from the past creatures that we once were? A handy mutation took care of all that for us?

Let's see if I can yell this loud enough so that you understand: YES!!!!!!!!!! YES, to every one of your questions.
You're thinking that birds had to lose their teeth as part of some divine plan and that a "handy" mutation came along to do this for them, this is teleology and I already said that you cannot think this way if you want to discuss evolution.

We do have remains of tails, etc., we do have homologous bones to other animals, and we do have embryonic characteristics that are similar to many other species.... Jimmy, it's very difficult to argue with biologists if you have not studied the science yourself.

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
You have been reading too much x-men comics.

You call 'em X-men comics, I call 'em Biological texts and scientific literature. You'd be well advised to have a look at these comics yourself before participating in an evolutionary discussion.

As for the rest of the tripe in your last two posts, you appear to have an unyielding amount of unfounded opinions that I am not about to attempt to dissuade you of. Just do us all a favour and do a little simple research beforehand, none of us here want to take you through a crash course in biology if you're not going to listen. You might of learned something if you paid attention.

It's been fun but I think I've said all that needs to be said.

Ryan

P.S. Mutations are not "flaws" if they serve to make one better suited to his/her environment and mutations very rarely render an organism sterile.

[JimmyDavid]

You keep saing i'm bringing a religious intention to my debate (?) I think you are having issues understanding it.
Since we are talking about comics. Did you read the death 0f superman? Ever heard of Doomsday? .... Can you prove that it's impossible to create a creature that way?

[JimmyDavid]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by RMBolton If we were to do it all over again, there's no guarantee that a human-like creature would evolve, in fact, it's unlikely.


err...that's a stupid comment Bolton. If we started all the way from the beggining (same big-bang, spreading matter through the void in the same way, under the same laws of physics) the universe would be created as an exact copy the existant.

[CamHanna]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
err...that's a stupid comment Bolton. If we started all the way from the beggining (same big-bang, spreading matter through the void in the same way, under the same laws of physics) the universe would be created as an exact copy the existant.

"My cat's breath smells like cat food."

[CamHanna]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
err...that's a stupid comment Bolton. If we started all the way from the beggining (same big-bang, spreading matter through the void in the same way, under the same laws of physics) the universe would be created as an exact copy the existant.

If it all happened exactly the same way then you are correct, it would all happen exactly the same way. It is incredible unlikely though.