Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
I can't remember and am too lazy to check. Have you always on these threads said Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur? So few of your brethren do. And how can there be any dispute at all over whether something is a dinosaur or a bird for gosh sakes?
We are concerned with facts here. What Darwin said or did not say is irrelevant. If he gave proof of it that would be relevant, but of course he did not. He never gave proof of anything.
The point was made that to account for some evolutionary changes in hemoglobin, one requires about 120 amino acid substitutions...as individual events, as though it is necessary to get one of them done and spread throughout the whole population before you could start processing the next one..
First of all, the above has nothing to do with the kind of co-evolution we were speaking of. We were talking of different genes, different characteristics, arising. This tells of just one gene, one faculty. However, let me just say this regarding the above. It is hogwash. Here's why. Yes, the change does not need to take place in one person at one time. However, because mutations are rare (else a species would dissappear in no time at all) the first mutation would have to spread itself to other individuals in the species. The problem with spreading the mutation is genetics. Each time it spreads, the mutation only has one chance in two to survive (and no, this has nothing to do with survival of the fittest and all that nonsense). So for a mutation to spread would be pretty difficult (that's one of the reasons for evos developing punk-eek). While you could be having other mutations going on in other individuals, this would not add to the mutations in the group with the other mutation because of the laws of genetics. Even if these two sets of mutatated genes were two be resident one in the father and one in the mother of a child - the child would only inherit one of the genes because of the laws of genetics. The article is therefore absolute hogwash.
BTW - the above is one of the many things in which Darwin has been thoroughly refuted. He thought that the differences of the parents "melded" in the progeny.
How do you know that macro-evolution happens? Have you seen it? Do you have proof of it? Or is it some sort of mythical atheistic belief?
However, because mutations are rare (else a species would dissappear in no time at all) the first mutation would have to spread itself to other individuals in the species. The problem with spreading the mutation is genetics. Each time it spreads, the mutation only has one chance in two to survive (and no, this has nothing to do with survival of the fittest and all that nonsense). So for a mutation to spread would be pretty difficult (that's one of the reasons for evos developing punk-eek). While you could be having other mutations going on in other individuals, this would not add to the mutations in the group with the other mutation because of the laws of genetics. Even if these two sets of mutatated genes were two be resident one in the father and one in the mother of a child - the child would only inherit one of the genes because of the laws of genetics. The article is therefore absolute hogwash.Bad model. I was asking tallhappy earlier why sex is important. It's important because every individual of a sexual species is totally unique. This makes having more than one experiment going on a piece of cake.
There are all kinds of mutations in all kinds of genes going around in a sexual species at any given time. Your model is still too serial. There are probably other problems because my eyes glaze over when I read your dense blue paragraphs. Are you allowing for recessive genes? You have more genes to give your children than you may be expressing.
A population is a cloud of individual genomes about a central average. Selection can move the average if things change. Think of that cloud as a sphere. The rightmost 40 percent gets lopped off. Now the center of mass has "moved."
BTW - the above is one of the many things in which Darwin has been thoroughly refuted. He thought that the differences of the parents "melded" in the progeny.Darwin wrote before Mendel. Anyway, the differences of the parents do meld in the progeny, but only overall, not in the micro traits.
Evolution, which has real information content, tells us that they did not.
I asked you to back it up in post 771. Now you refuse and start playing games about I asked you first and such nonsense. Clearly you are unable to back up your claims that we have proof that dinosaurs did not have mammary glands, warm blood and were more intelligent than mankind. You just make bald assertions and throw dirt on the wall hoping no one will call you on it. Well I am calling you on it Vade. Give the proof.
Want to see something new, not just the same old same old? Well, I'll show you anyway. BMCDA found some nice new web pages on ring species.
Don't ask me to read them to you.
What does evolution say about the possibility of teats on a dinosaur and why does it say it? After all, you know that what it says is wrong, so you must know what it says and why it says it.When you say this
You just make bald assertions and throw dirt on the wall hoping no one will call you on it. Well I am calling you on it Vade. Give the proof.does that mean, "OK, I give up? I can't imagine what evolution says on the subject or why it would say it?"
Sure you want to do that? How can you put down evolution if you have no idea how it works?
There's a line of evolutionary reasoning which says "No" to mammaries on dinosaurs.
I say this even though I've often shown you a figure of reptilian skulls almost morphing into early mammal skulls, so obvious is the relationship.
Big, big hint: None of those reptiles were dinosaurs.
Yet this camera works better than any camera we can make! The bat's sonar is also better than any we can make also. To call these organs "wrongly made" when we do not even understand them and cannot make anything better is totally wrong. When you do not know the reasons, when you cannot do better, you cannot criticize the work of another.
I guess you call the above "proof" of evolution? Note that you do not give us any pictures and I bet you do not even have the vaguest idea what this species is. Do note however that they are still all called by the same generic name.
BTW - what you posted is all the text in the article! Some proof! You just pick a title you like and call it proof.
Mollusks get out of their shells, often make different shells in a lifetime. They are a form of housing. Do different species of humans live in one story houses than in two story houses?
Your little shells are just one more example of the phoniness of the so-called "science" of paleontology.
Are you saying that a woman with long hair is a different species than one with short hair? That a woman with the hair tied up at the top is a different species than one who lets her hair just fall? Mollusks and other shelled animals (tortoises for example) can get out of their shells. The shell says absolutely nothing about the animal inside except perhaps as to its relative size (but then there are small mollusks and they change and make new shells as they grow up).
Ah! Semantics! I can still find the thread in which you argued that because a platypus is called a duckbill, the bill must be a duck's bill.
It feels so funny, realizing you're not going to read this for a long time yet. I said it on another thread long ago, but what the heck.
Watching you read down a thread, I can imagine I see your lips moving.
I'm bullying again! (Sob!) Stop me!
If I said this
Yes, the change does not need to take place in one person at one time. However, because mutations are rare (else a species would dissappear in no time at all) the first mutation would have to spread itself to other individuals in the species. The problem with spreading the mutation is genetics. Each time it spreads, the mutation only has one chance in two to survive (and no, this has nothing to do with survival of the fittest and all that nonsense). So for a mutation to spread would be pretty difficult (that's one of the reasons for evos developing punk-eek). While you could be having other mutations going on in other individuals, this would not add to the mutations in the group with the other mutation because of the laws of genetics. Even if these two sets of mutatated genes were two be resident one in the father and one in the mother of a child - the child would only inherit one of the genes because of the laws of genetics.would you say I was smart then?
It is the evolutionists which create arbitrariness. Heck in one of the posts here they call changing the sex call of an organism the creation of a new species! Guess Chinese are a different species than English, they talk a different language! I gave you non-arbitrary distinctions and explained the reasons for them in a post to Junior a few posts above this one. The distinctions for macro-evolution are: in taxonomy - a new genus, in terms of genetics a set of new genes, in terms of phenotype - new faculties and increased complexity.
The distribution of this species is from British Columbia in Canada, through Washington, Oregon, California and into Baja California of Mexico. Presently, seven subspecies are recognized,
They are not even species and you call this macro-evolution? Please!
As to the guinea pigs, some mammals can and do manufacture vitamin c, that's why I do not consider this having to do with descent. Same with the chimp hemoglobin. All scientists agree that man and monkeys split off somewhere a long time ago so if both man and chimp have it, then the other apes should have it too and this does not seem to be the case from what you say. The cheetah is interesting, had not heard about it and it is certainly curious.
Now as to your point, yes it could show descent, however, there are so many curiosities in living things which cannot be accounted by descent - the platypus, the bat, and many others that it seems to me that what we have is a designer who used some parts of his "building blocks" in different places with as far as evolutionary theory goes no sense at all (although I am sure there was good reason since the species in which this happened work well). I don't expect you to change your mind over the above, however, it is another way to think about these curiosities.
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.