Posted on 06/10/2014 6:41:20 PM PDT by Vinylly
I’ve heard all that about Mormons: that God was once a human, about the spirit wives, of being future gods of their own planets, etc. But every time you say that to a Mormon, they emphatically deny that’s what they believe. So either (a) it’s false, (b) they’re lying, or (c) it’s a belief only held among the ‘inner circle’. Whatever the case, Joseph Smith was definitely a strange one. But due to this ambiguity, I’m not quite willing to judge someone solely on the basis of their being a Mormon.
As far as I know, the manner in which shape is obtained from genotype has never been described.
What you’ve done is no more than suggesting a possible general mechanism—responding to chemical signals—which is only described on a microscopic level yet seems to be missing a lot of the details. I don’t think you can bridge the gap to show how shape is determined on a macro level.
That is, I don’t think you can take a set of gene sequences and predict what shape will come of it, for example shape of extremities or shape of trunk region. Or how to change the gene sequences in order to produce a particular phenotype size or shape.
As for transitional species—can you give me at least one example?
Actually, we do have many instances in which the appearance of the phenotype can be predicted from the genotype. And research is turning up more details all the time. It is a logical fallacy to assume that because we do not yet have the knowledge of exactly how *every* gene contributes to phenotype, that we have *no* knowledge in that area.
What you’ve done is no more than suggesting a possible general mechanism—responding to chemical signals—which is only described on a microscopic level yet seems to be missing a lot of the details. I don’t think you can bridge the gap to show how shape is determined on a macro level.
Every multicellular organism has its shape determined by molecular events. There are no exceptions. The propagation of chemical signals throughout the developing embryo is hardly a "possible general mechanism"--it is the only mechanism. Those signals direct cells when to grow, when to stop growing, when and how to differentiate, when to die (cell death is an integral part of development), etc.
As far as not being able to "bridge the gap", the fact that it is not yet possible to look at a genome and predict the person's appearance is meaningless. That does not mean that it will never be possible. The fact is that many features *are* predictable from genotype. For instance, since a few Neanderthal genomes have been sequenced, it is possible to determine their hair color without having any sample hair.
As for transitional species—can you give me at least one example?
Only one? Humans.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that there is a defined end point for evolution, and that either species are heading for that end point or are already there. There is no end point since evolution is a continuous process. Therefore, by definition, every living species is a transition species.
I didn’t say appearance, or features—I said shape. How genotype predicts shape on the macro level seems to be information that is entirely unavailable.
As for species transition—if evolution is true, then some species currently existing would necessarily be defined as precursors of other species also currently in existence. And by the laws of probability, some of the precursors would have to be very close to their successors in the evolutionary trajectory, while others would be not so close.
But we don’t have this. We only have some species which can be claimed to be on the same line of evolution as others, but only distantly related—and even this often seems a stretch of logic. There are none which are close together on the evolutionary timeline, as would have to be the case if evolution were true.
Um... that is a real head-scratcher. Have you ever heard of DNA? All of the information needed to shape the organism is right there. Instead of memorizing the content of anti-science sites like Answers in Genesis and its ilk, how about reading up a bit on genetics, biochemistry, embryogenesis, etc.?
As for species transition—if evolution is true, then some species currently existing would necessarily be defined as precursors of other species also currently in existence. And by the laws of probability, some of the precursors would have to be very close to their successors in the evolutionary trajectory, while others would be not so close.
Obviously, you did not read my previous posts. Since evolution is a continuous process, every organism is, by definition, a transition organism. And evolution takes place a few mutations at a time, so it takes millenia to see distinct changes in a long-living species like humans. Nevertheless, your genome contains mutations not present in either of your parent's genomes, and none of your chromosomes (except the X and Y) match any of your parent's chromosomes. With that kind of genetic mix up at every generation, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the genetic composition of a species after 100 generations will be different than its genetic composition right now. And after 1,000 generations, it will be even more different, and at some point many generations hence, it will not be the same species any more.
We only have some species which can be claimed to be on the same line of evolution as others, but only distantly related—and even this often seems a stretch of logic.
Um... science does not progress through logical exercises. The only criterion that matters in science is measurable and observable evidence. It is not logic that tells us that the genomes of humans and chimpanzees are only about 5% different--this determination was made by actually comparing the two genomes, chromosome for chromosome, gene sequence for gene sequence. These days, we use phylogenetic trees a lot for mapping evolutionary relationships. You might try reading up about them sometime.
Do not confuse your own ignorance of biology for any real gaps of knowledge within the field. You'd do well to assume that whatever you don't know, someone not only knows, but is actively researching that topic. Also, just because something isn't known yet does not mean that the knowledge does not exist or is unknowable--it just means that it is merely waiting to be discovered.
If you take a course in genetics at any university, you’ll find that exams require the ability to describe the processes of dna replication and rna transcription, the process of translation into proteins.
In other courses of biology and biochemistry, you’ll need to know about how carbohydrates and lipids are processed and sometimes synthesized.
But there are no exam questions that require a description of how particular genetic sequences produce particular morphological shape on the macro level. Knowledge of how this is achieved is totally absent in the field of molecular biology.
This is due to the fact that when it comes to an understanding of how body plan is formed on a macro level, evolution theory is entirely bankrupt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.