Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
Because today it requires tricks and mutations, whereas all archaeopteryx had them as a matter of course. Even creationists manage to learn that chickens have beaks and not teeth.
Moreover, the fact that it is at all possible to "trick" a chicken into growing teeth is another classic evidence of evolution. Chickens have teeth in their ancestry: it's written in their genes as well as in their fossil history. Stephen Jay Gould even titled one of his books Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes.
Evolution is all about physics.
If that's the case, I give it my full endorsement.
BTTT
It doesn't require "mutations" at all. The birds all have the genes to grow teeth. You remove the DNA methylation that prevents them from being expressed and you'll get a bird with a mouthful of teeth.
Still, could be the same critter and we'll never know unless we can compare a full genome of one with the other.
It simply does not require a change in genes to stop teeth from growing. DNA methylation, which does not itself change the genome ~ not even to transpose a basepair ~ can do the trick all by itself.
You asked about macroevolution and I gave you a dozen or more examples in which chromosome duplications have produced macro changes.
Selective breeding takes advantage of mutations as well as alleles already existing in the gene pool. There is no physical or biological difference between natural and artificial selection.
Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles due to differential reproductive success. It matters not whether the success is determined with or without human intervention.
Evolution includes changes due to mutations, and polyploidy is a mutation.
You asked for examples where evolution has produced something useful, and I pointed out that most of what we eat -- all of our domesticated plants and animals are the result of applied evolution.
>>(Hint: A "theory" is not a grown-up "hypothesis.")<<
Yes, I notice it is quite common for discussions to end up being reduced to the definitions of words - and with things like dictionary.com so easily available.
That said, arguing definitions of words like "theory" are usualy diversions used by both sides in this thing.
Really.
I believe what I said was that anyone applying evolution to humans would not kill the brightest, most talented and productive individuals, and encourage the reproduction of the dregs. Go back to my posts and see if that's not what I said.
Evolution is very useful as a religion.
Get a life. Applied evolution has produced all of our food crops and all of our domestic animals -- both our pets and the ones we eat. You would starve to death if evolution didn't exist.
LOL, reminds me of the unions saying they invented the weekend.
It simply does not require a change in genes to stop teeth from growing. DNA methylation, which does not itself change the genome ~ not even to transpose a basepair ~ can do the trick all by itself.
That's fine, but why and how did the methylation change in actual birds? Are you saying it was not due to some other change in the DNA? I'm not talking about what goes on in the lab, but what went on in the wild.
But in any case, all this is beside the point. Darwinism (and indeed evolution) isn't tied to genetics, obviously: Darwin knew nothing of genetics. All that is required is an inherited change. As you say, all birds expressed teeth at one time. As you know, no birds express teeth today (except under extremely special conditions). That's an inherited change (genetic or not). Evolution by definition.
One process for suppressing a gene is called "DNA methylation". There may well be others, e.g. a demiurge from the quantum processor in each cell ~ something like that ~ we just don't know yet.
No change in the genome is required for birds to NOT express teeth, nor is a change in the genome required for birds to express teeth.
Mammals somehow suppress the growth of extra tooth sets ~ reptiles have no such problem. Neither do birds. There's work afoot to determine how we can remove the suppression ~ and thereby eliminate dentistry.
>>OK. I've had one every year it has been available. I guess I don't see the relevance of either statement.<<
Me neither. I was responding to this comment:
"Well I suppose then that all the creationsits can skip their annual influenza vaccinations and free up the limited supply to the evos."
My point was that I DO already skip it. I wouldn't even know where to get one, especially since I don't have TV, I don't listen to radio and I don't read newspapers. All my news is Pulled.
I suppose I could google it if I had to...
True enough. Whig --> Republican was not a direct transformation, but rather a general defection from the failing Whig party to the new Republican one, e.g. Lincoln.
Hmmmmmm ~ the "other problem" ~ where one side starts claiming the territory thought to have been carved out by the other.
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.