Skip to comments.
Study Hints at How Genetic Mutations Led to Macroevolutionary Change
Scientific American ^
| Kate Wong
Posted on 02/07/2002 8:49:05 AM PST by realpatriot71
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 next last
Hmmmm? Thoughts?
To: Sabertooth
Ping!
To: realpatriot71
Image: Matthew Ronshaugen/UCSD |
To: realpatriot71
I wonder if them
Hox genes are pronounced as below?
To: realpatriot71
So, what they're trying to say is: a fly is a shrimp is a goat is a human - just switch the right Hox (hoax?) genes.
Yeah, right!
To: realpatriot71
I don't necessarliy have a problem with macroevolution per se. If it's proven or strongly indicated, I can live with that.
To be fair, this article doesn't claim that, only a hint.
Where I have a problem is the presumption of some that we have any real clue as to what might cause or drive macroevolution. It's there, I think, that we all need to concede that where the scientific evidence is concerned, "we really don't know" what causes speciation.
To: Sabertooth
To: realpatriot71
Did this not occur in Thalidomide children?
8
posted on
02/07/2002 9:21:01 AM PST
by
ijcr
To: throwthebumsout
The fossil record contains numerous examples of dramatic evolutionary change in animals… WRONG! The fossil record contains many fully formed animals and not one proven transitional one.
God hating “scientists”, the high priests of the secular religion, must insist that these are evolutionary changes. There is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record. But they keep repeating the same mantra. All together now ..."600 billion years ...yada yada yada ..."
9
posted on
02/07/2002 9:25:59 AM PST
by
DaveyB
To: Sabertooth
We know that speciation is caused when a single species/group spilts and no longer mates. This can be caused by something as simple as river separating the two populations or one species does not recognize the "mating dance" of the other species. Now how changes occur at levels about genus, NO, we have no direct evidence of that ever happening, especially by mutation.
To: throwthebumsout
No, what they're saying is the Hox gene allows for the expression of different genes that code for limb development. This could be one way that allowed for limb development or lack thereof. They have not said this is conclusive proof of macroevo, but rather this could be a mechanism.
To: realpatriot71
We know that speciation is caused when a single species/group spilts and no longer mates. This can be caused by something as simple as river separating the two populations or one species does not recognize the "mating dance" of the other species. How long is this supposed to take?
To: realpatriot71
We know that speciation is caused when a single species/group spilts and no longer mates.
While that's generally true, without getting into the particulars here, there are some problems with the mating/not mating definition of species. There are still some fuzzy areas around our definitions.
To: DaveyB
There is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record. Archaeopteryx.
yada yada yada
14
posted on
02/07/2002 9:37:00 AM PST
by
stanz
To: DaveyB
True. There is not real transitory fossil (at least in not my opinion). However, what is seen in the fossil record is that the least complex fossils are buried deeper than more complex species, with the most complex being at the top. I think to be intellectually honest, this is one of the toughest points for a creationist to explain.
To: tallhappy; Sabertooth
How long is this supposed to take?
In a case of California chipmunks, not more than a few generations. The different species can mate, but do not because the different groups have new matting rituals that the other species does not reognize. Speciation is really a definition of reproductive isolation in the wild.
To: realpatriot71
Speciation is really a definition of reproductive isolation in the wild. Where does this come from?
To: ijcr
Did this not occur in Thalidomide children?
I couldn't find any info in the mechanism at the genetic level for why Thalidomide children happened.
To: Sabertooth
Just to be exoteric for a moment:
While I still don't "get" the controversy over evolution, I will add that there seems to be no verb form for the word speciation. There is specialize, derived from the French, to specify, to adapt, to concentrate on a specific profession. Perhaps we can use "specify" as the verb for speciation, but that would imply a conscious choice and we assume speciation and evolution are not the result of conscious decisions except by an effective deity.
To: tallhappy
Where does this come from?
Repoductive isolation could be any number of things as I already said, anything from sexual organs are not compatible, to chromosome number not compatible, to a river or mountain that separates the two communities. This usually results in the two species being genetically different because of breeding only within the immediate group.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson