Challenge: Can mutations build new structures?

Oh, don’t worry, I know I’m right. It’s obvious you don’t know evolutionary theory. Since we are agreed on that, I guess we should both ignore most of this thread.

Try my blog, linked on my profile here. If you are interested in discussing actual evolutionary biology, and not the strawmen that represent your lack of knowledge, then you will read some actual science and you will stop the bluster. Until you have made some effort to understand the theory that you have typed hundreds of words of critique about, this conversation will be absurd.

2 Likes

c’mmon…define it right here for us.

evolutionists themselves are fighting over what it is and what it isn’t…or what it should be. nobody knows. That is for sure. There is no way that Stephen can define this thing. It is so unbelievably convoluted.

http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

  1. The researchers identified 70 genes that are convergently evolved between the Giant and Red Pandas. There is no claim that 70 genes are involved in the pseudothumb. The researchers mention two genes specifically (DYNC2H1 and PCNT) that they hypothesize may work synergistically in the pseudothumb development. Either you did not read the article carefully enough or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

  2. Mutations are indeed involved in this convergent evolution. I see no basis for your assertion that there is “no mutation involved in the thumb”.

  3. Never in your “challenge” did you stipulate that the novel structure must be due to a single mutation. If you set your bar at “a single mutation must produce a completely new structure” it is no wonder why you don’t find the theory of evolution unconvincing. This hypothetical requirement is simply not consistent with the theory.

5 Likes

exactly right. so show me multiple mutations that did it. Your source did not mention mutations.

They really did… I’m not making this up. Sure, they are hypothesizing that it is these two genes that are involved. But regardless if they are right or wrong, there are mutations in the genomes that allow production of the pseudothumb. If you are convinced that mutations are not responsible, then what do you propose would account for the existence of the pseudothumb?

1 Like

Were you able to read the paper about mutations underlying multicellularity? The link is in this previous post on this thread.

1 Like

btw…your source at the bottom even says the mutations haven’t been verified yet…but even if they were, it would similar to the duplications of toes that cats can experiments via polydactyl. They can have over 20 duplicated toes on one paw…mutations are known to do this but this just duplicates pre-existing hardware. Humans, as well have been known to have six fingers so it seems that organisms have this capacity somewhere in their information architecture. Duplicating the panda’s digits via mutation wouldn’t be extremely surprising (though it hasn’t been verified yet)…but again, it would only be a duplication, and a degenerated duplication at that, as the digit is half the size of the others.

It’s a computer generated hypothetical timeline, a hypothetical “primitive” ancestor, a hypothetical series of events, mainly an enzyme that underwent a mutation and got “repurposed” to attain a new function. But there is no real science behind this notion that multicellularity was introduced by a single mutation, mostly just a long string of assumptions and guesses. If you want to read the extended critique go here: Researchers Proclaim: Instant Animals by Chance | Evolution News

This is untrue. The panda pseudothumb is a modified sesamoid bone in the wrist, not an entire extra digit as seen in polydactyly.

This is what polydactyly looks like:

This is what the panda psuedothumb looks like:

Finally, here is a schematic to highlight the difference:

Sure, they look similar on the outside, but their bone origin is clearly different.

3 Likes

yea I didn’t say they were the same as polydactyl . but “similar” is an ok description. If there were to be an extra digit it would be where this one is.

So, no, you didn’t read it. Okay. Bye.

2 Likes

we’re all still waiting for that definition of evolution.

The criteria of your challenge seems to be rather fluid. So the new structure has to look completely different from anything ever observed before or it doesn’t count? No matter if the structure has a different point of origin? It almost seems as though you have your mind made up already despite multiple answers to your challenge…

1 Like

you can’t present anything anyway. I gave you an example earlier about the water fleas generating a new defensive spine…but it was via epigenetics. That would qualify if it was via mutation.

I followed the link, but there is nothing on that page about Daphnia, water fleas, or spines. Maybe you could track down the original article and post it.

here’s a picture of the original article…not sure why the link now skips the part about the water fleas.

https://www.coursehero.com/file/p1360c/approved-by-the-Food-and-Drug-Administration-for-use-against-myelodysplastic/

My turn to ask for an original article to support this. There is not sufficient information there to discuss.

perhaps that is what you looking for

There are some cool pictures! But nothing on the epigenetic origin of the defenses.