They don’t get a free pass. We know they exist and have existed in the past. We can see them change over time. We can see them change in real time as a result of mutations. We see that the real-time changes are faster than is needed to explain the historical changes. Put this set of facts against the alternative model, which was. . . well, there isn’t one, is there? Why do you think your nonexistent alternative should get a free pass?
Which structure? What structures are you actually talking about?
More accurately, mutations do alter, sometimes slightly, sometimes dramatically, existing structures, and they do so over and over and over again. Now, is there any evidence at all that accumulated mutations couldn’t produce something like the mammalian middle ear?[quote=“supersport, post:75, topic:36626”]
but these types of alterations do not add information or add new structural novelty. But if you have an example in mind that you think refutes this notion please present it.
[/quote]
I find the notion too vague to refute. In any meaning of “information” that makes sense to me, a mutation always changes information, and most mutations add information. You obviously mean something different by the term. And what do you mean by a “structural novelty”? Do humans have any structural novelties? Do primates?
Correct![quote=“T_aquaticus, post:78, topic:36626”]
All alleles were new mutations at one point.
[/quote]
Incorrect! Alleles are versions of genes, and mutations are events that change one allele into another. Things are not events.
“All alleles were new mutant alleles at one point,” would be correct, but that doesn’t address the question of which is the ancestor and which is the mutant.[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:78, topic:36626”]
I care a bit more about science than politics.[/quote]
I mentioned education, too. Do you care about it?
Can you claim with a straight face that we US scientists have done a good job of educating the public about evolution?
But what you seem to be missing is that underlying that misconception is a bigger misconception that populations are static, then we have a mutation, and only then is there evolution.
By using this straw-man version, Tom can reduce the number of genetic differences that can effect change by about a million-fold!
And what I’m pointing out is that the vast majority of raw material for selection is, as Darwin observed, already present, no mutations required. When I’ve tried explaining this to reasonable laypeople, several have told me that this makes the light bulb go on for them. No mutational boogeymen.
[quote]Pointing to the fact that sequence differences between alleles are responsible for changes in species meets that challenge, at least in my view.
[/quote]Do you think that Tom agrees with your view?
Perhaps you’d be better served by not putting words in the mouths of others. You are laboring under an incredible weight of misconceptions about basic evolutionary concepts.
Are you aware that we view the tree of life as, well, a metaphorical tree, and not the metaphorical ladder you are describing here?
huh? You deny universal common descent? if not, then you must agree that all creatures came from a bacteria-like organism. This organism did not have any of the features – or very few – that humans have. So all of our anatomy had to arise somehow. Funny thing is that this universal common ancestor is a giant question mark too, with no scientific explanation. point is, you have nothing. No feature in life has a known naturalistic explanation as far as origins goes.
Because you’re assuming they exist and that they got here via mutation. I’m not going to give you the notion that monkey anatomy got here via mutation from some ground rat type creature. You will have to prove that. Nor will I give you a free pass that the rat creature mutated away from some kind of reptile or reptile-like creature. This is purely unsubstantiated. Look, you are trying to prove the grand sweep of evolution, but you can’t provide a shred of evidence that your mechanism can do what it is advertised to do. Mutations can do a myriad of things but nothing in the way of building or adding new and innovative structures.
[quote=“supersport, post:87, topic:36626, full:true”]
huh? You deny universal common descent?[/quote]
Universal? I’m waiting for the data. There clearly was a lot of horizontal transfer going on.
No, Tom, bacteria are as evolved as we are. That’s what I mean when I point out that it’s not a ladder.
And it didn’t have any of the features that modern bacteria have, either, if you use the same definition of “features.”
You’re really having trouble grasping this tree thing. We’re at the end of a branch, and bacteria are at the end of another branch.
So what structure is present in us, but not in our fellow primate, the chimp? Or vice versa?
Why are you so reluctant to specify a structure, Tom?
You answered none of my questions. Why should you get a free pass on explaining the data? What kind of structure are you talking about? Do humans have any unique structures? Do primates? What do you mean by information?
Repeating slogans is not the same as offering an argument, and it’s nothing at all like having a discussion – which is the goal here.
I take it there are no good examples of novel structures within the mammalian clade, then: or at least none you can think of off the top of your head. Feel free to let us know if you think of any!
Here are a few articles about the evolution of the knee. I can’t access them but maybe someone can.
I’ll refrain, for now, from piling up similar information on ball-and-socket joints, at least till I know if this batch is the kind of thing you are interested in.
I love how easy it is for mutations to add information; duplication is a common type of mutation, and once something is duplicated, any other kind of mutation that changes one of the copies turns it into additional information that wasn’t there before. The best part about this is that we can look at our genetic code and see all sorts of examples of “gene families,” genes which have been duplicated and modified to perform lots of different tasks!
The challenge is really finding something in biology which didn’t come from something else…
[quote=“glipsnort, post:90, topic:36626”]
You answered none of my questions. Why should you get a free pass on explaining the data?[/quote]
because life is an apparent miracle. Everyone in the history of mankind has acknowledged this until the recent age of atheism/naturalism which has somehow taken over science. The onus, then, is on the naturalist to disprove the notion that life and humanity are the works of a miraculous Creator and instead show scientific evidence of a legitimate alternative. You people are the ones who teach this stuff in the classrooms as “science” and thus the onus is all on you to present the science.
what slogan? You cannot show me a paper that presents a mutation that adds information, nor can you present a paper that presents a mutation that adds new structural novelty. Nor can you present a paper that gives a legitimate explanation for where life came from, where dna came from, where cells came from, where consciousness came from – where anything came from. Your team is stuck at ground zero. You have nothing. There is no reason to believe any part of your story. No slogan needed. I have the facts on my side.
[quote=“supersport, post:93, topic:36626”]
The onus, then, is on the naturalist to disprove the notion that life and humanity are the works of a miraculous Creator and instead show scientific evidence of a legitimate alternative.[/quote]
Perhaps you should read some of the material on this site before saying something so silly. We believe that life and humanity are the works of a miraculous Creator. He created them using evolution.
[quote]You people are the ones who teach this stuff in the classrooms as “science” and thus the onus is all on you to present the science.
[/quote]You’re just putting false words in the mouths of others to distract from the fact that your challenge is vapid. You can’t offer a single instance of anything that meets your definition of “new structure,” can you?
Why is it that you’re constantly making claims of what large groups of people say, but never offering a single, actual quote?[quote=“supersport, post:93, topic:36626”]
Your team is stuck at ground zero.[/quote]
My team is doing science; yours isn’t. Are there any creationist pharma companies? Would you invest in one?
[quote]You have nothing. There is no reason to believe any part of your story. No slogan needed. I have the facts on my side.
[/quote]You haven’t presented a single fact here. All bluster and putting words in the mouths of others.
Which side produces the facts, like the terabytes of sequence data?
alright…just as I figured…no mutation involved in the thumb. Science is saying that there are 70 genes “involved” in this thumb. This means gene expression. I do not doubt that changes in gene expression can generate new phenotypes or alterations to existing structures…or even in some cases, activate latent phenotypes, “new structures” upon an environmental cue:
""To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover
But see, your theory, in order to explain the existence of complex genomes, must tie the gradual changes we see in organisms over time with mutations – with changes in the base code. These must coincide. If the changes we see in nature, particularly morphological adaptations, are chalked up to merely gene expression, then the changes are not evidence of evolution/common descent, but rather just environmentally-induced alterations that help individuals survive better in stressful or threatening situations. This is why your theory insists that mutations provide the raw material for evolution…and this is why I am challenging you in this way.
But see, you’re not challenging “my theory.” Because, quite simply, you don’t know what it is. Almost everything you wrote here is wrong. You are thrashing strawmen, and it’s a shame because a discussion of evolutionary novelty and mutations and variation and design… could have all the heat of a vigorous disagreement but with light too. Your “challenges” are simply repeated assertions of your ignorance. I hope that ignorance is temporary; there is no reason it has to go on and on.
We DID evolve from primates…(according to you). You claiming we are primates is your opinion. You may be a primate but I am not. I do not classify me (and humanity as a whole) purely on physical attributes. We humans clearly have a spiritual element and a superior nature about us that no other organism has. No other animal is in our class or in our league. But if you want to call yourself a primate or an ape, be my guest. I do not.
How does life exist without a cell? Viruses are not considered alive by scientists, for example. Regardless, nobody in science knows how life started via accident so it’s not productive to guess or say what they think. There are many ideas.
all of life supposedly descended from nature’s first living creature. Many people refer to this as the “Tree of Life.” If you don’t like that term then you’re welcome to call it something else, but I’m on solid ground referring to it that way.
10 examples of a new structure.
cornea
retina
lens
rods
cones
macula
pupil
Iris
optic nerve
sclera
Dawkins says the eye formed over millions of years in thousands of steps. Evolutionists say we evolved from worms…worms don’t have eyes…therefore all eye parts are new. Yet you have no mutations to make any of these eye parts come into existence.
Actually you are right. I do not know what the theory is…because nobody does…it has no definition anymore… If you doubt me I would love to see you try to define it along with a full description of the mechanisms involved. Your words please. Back up with a link.