If you just watch the video below, about Alaska and Florida Rabbits
you will learn about one of the examples of common descent that even many Evangelicals accept.
"As introduced by Socratic Fanatic: "Youtube’s Potholer54 . . . [‘Potholer54’ is the name of the YouTube user/channel who has a strong interest in debating with YEC’s] . . . has a great video were he explains how even Kent Hovind had come to agree with the idea of evolution—as long the word is avoided . . . . I sometimes use that video as an example of directly observing macroevolution today, because a North American rabbit species has diversified to where Florida rabbits of that species can’t/won’t breed with [Alaska] rabbits . . . . but rabbits living in the Midwest can breed with both. "
.
.
The leading cause for common descent leading to 2 populations that cannot breed with each other is through “independent mutation” of the populations (usually when separated by significant barriers or distance). In Birds, such failures to breed can be triggered by “innovations in song”, making mates from the other population treat the candidate like a completely different animal.
But I don’t think too many people have heard rabbits sing…
A final thought … please note that some of the exhibits at the Ark Encounter include references to “limited” evolution… apparently they have no problem with mutation rates being ordinarily sufficient to support “change” over time:
"This origin of species from a common ancestor occurred by evolutionary processes. This is made clear by an exhibit on the Ark Encounter where we learn that, “species give rise to new species, modified characteristics develop over time, and the fittest animals survive.”
" This is a reasonable description of Darwin’s explanation for the origin of species by means of natural selection. Many visitors to the Ark Encounter may be surprised to discover exhibits which embrace Darwin’s mechanism – natural selection – for producing new species albeit with some strict limits. "
"Along with other natural mechanisms of change the Ark Encounter has proposed what I call a “post-flood rapid speciation model” of modern biological diversity to solve the problem of the limited dimensions and manpower of Noah’s Ark.
I don’t think I want to try that … I think I’ll just go to the trouble of pasting a copy of that video with the footage of the Evangelical discussing the rabbit “kinds”.
Lynn, you were the one that provided the folks here with the video, yes? That was an awesome eye opener! And I think we all owe you some thanks! (oops… look at the addendum below!).
I’ll be editing that part of my post ASAP…
Addendum: It looks like @Socratic.Fanatic was the one who brought the video to these pages! I salute you, Socratic!
I consider apoptosis part of the repair mechanism for calculation purposes. So if you estimate 10^11 level accuracy that would include apoptosis and repair yielding that accuracy.
Nope, not me, I just saw you post it in a few threads!
It appears to be an old argument used by Ken Hovind that got turned on him?? Anyway rabbits aren’t even native to Alaska (hares are) so I’m not really sure what it originated with. But a couple minutes is really all I’m inclined to spend googling it, so who knows?
I just didn’t want to send anybody ‘chasing down rabbit trails’ without knowing!
Apoptosis removes variation of DNA through cell death. That, like DNA repair, is removing variation from the process. So I simply include it as part of the accuracy calculation. This will not make a difference to the analysis. If I can measure my DNA repair mechanism accuracy to 10^11, the system is multicellular and apoptosis is part of the cell cycle, this will make the results more accurate then DNA repair alone.
Sy, this is kinetically incorrect. Any population that suffered no mutations would evolve driven by existing variation for a very, very long time, since existing variation is about a million-fold more common than new mutations.
Populations become endangered and extinct by losing their “reservoir” of existing variation, no?
[quote=“Billcole, post:79, topic:35420”]
One of the key adaptive systems of mammals is the immune system but this is designed to adapt through hypermutation. [/quote]
And theologically, how is this different from saying that biology is designed to adapt through regular mutation? And isn’t there V-D-J recombination before the hypermutation? Why would you omit that?
[quote]The reason it works is that the binding site is limited so the search is limited.
[/quote]Limited relative to other binding sites? How, exactly?
If God designed us, isn’t He quite an ironist if He designed our immune systems to work by shuffling existing variation by recombination, along with mutation? Isn’t that exactly how scientists have determined that we evolve, and what you’re denying while omitting the important role of existing variation? Is your omission a strategic one?
Yes, that is correct. I should have said, eventually. And of course we are mostly talking about the first 3 billion years of evolution, when all this was happening in bacteria (and other single celled organisms). There was plenty of time for those with perfect repair capacity to go extinct after using up the reservoir of variation.
Before you go any further with your calculations, you should definitely read this paper, just published a week ago in Nature. I think it makes vague calculations unnecessary. Let’s both read it and then we can discuss it.
A million-fold strikes me as rather high, at least for something like primates – and it’s much too high if you’re comparing the total number of old and new variants, rather than their contributions to heterozygosity.
[quote=“gbrooks9, post:100, topic:35420”]
My conclusion regarding the usual or customary driver for divergence in 2 populations from reading literature on Ring Species. Do you find the role of geography to be a radical idea?[/quote]
I’m not disputing geography.
I find your assertions about the necessity of mutations to be ungrounded in reality.
I’m questioning your claim that mutation is the source of the genetic differences.
Not at all. I’m questioning your claim of mutation uber alles.
I’m only beating your false claims about mutation, George.
The relative roles of new variation and old variation are extremely important, as you can see from Bill’s post. Random mutation is mysterious and scary, so creationists seize upon it as a rhetorical weapon. Existing heritable variation, OTOH, is something that everyone observes every day and is undeniable.
[quote]You do understand that I support Evolution, yes?
[/quote]You do understand that you don’t understand genetics (or Genetics), yes?
And yet again, you apparently cannot resist hurling your innuendo that I am stupid.
Wasn’t it just a few days ago that you were chiming in on some other poster’s comments, dancing on my head about “Ring Speciation” being a completely made-up phrase, empty of meaning … and that I was some special flavor of dummy … until I found two papers with “Ring Speciation” in it … one even had it in the title.
This was my mistake. I was optimistic about you taking on a new leaf. I don’t care how many times you comment about my future posts… I will simply not give you any additional opportunities…
