quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim

Welcome to Christianity.com, Gluadys. I assume you know who I am, despite my using a different name here from the one I use at Christian Forums. Did the link I posted there to one of my debates with Jhud get you interested in joining this forum?

quote:

Endler, J. A. 1991. Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions. Vision Research 31:587-608.

quote:

Since when are "male and female" (the terms Jesus uses) specific names?

quote:

Yes. And CF is pretty slow right now--at least in Origins Theology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Endler, J. A. 1991. Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions. Vision Research 31:587-608.

So much for proto-guppy evolving into guppy evolving into neo-guppy. I really don't want to review the thousands of scientific observations of adaptation that both evolutionists and creationists agree occur on a regular basis. Thanks for the effort, gluadys. Catch you another time.

quote:

Bait and switch play. You did not ask for evidence of proto-guppies becoming guppies becoming neo-guppies.

You asked for a paper that described the observation of the evolutionary process. You got one.

Note that process is not history. It is, however, necessary to understand the process in order to track it through history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I think the problem with such examples are two-fold; first off, such processes are increasingly being shown to be regulatory rather than a real change in the sort of genes found in a population of organisms.

quote:

Secondly, before we can say these processes are responsible for the differences we find in all life that exists, we must know exactly what genetic processes are at play here. I would suggest that the processes that produce various guppy color patterns probably wouldn't be the same sort that produce novel body plans, organs, and capabilities.

quote:

Bait and switch play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Bait and switch play.

The only ones playing bait-and-switch are those who cannot or will not differentiate between adaptation and neo-Darwinian evolution. You have no observational data for the latter "theory" so you attempt to cover up your deficiency by referencing observations of natural variation and adaptation and then calling it an evolutionary process. Such circular reasoning is readily and painfully obvious, gluadys, to those of us not enamored with the religion of naturalism.

quote:

I am glad you raised this point, because I would like your explanation of why you think this makes a difference. After all, DNA mutates throughout the whole genome, not just in coding genes. Why would mutations in regulatory DNA not be just as prone to inheritance and selection as mutations in coding DNA? IOW why would the changing distribution of such modified regulatory mechanisms in a population not be an evolutionary process?

quote:

Again, does it make a difference as long as the processes and/or their phenotypic consequences are inheritable, variable and subject to selection?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I am glad you raised this point, because I would like your explanation of why you think this makes a difference. After all, DNA mutates throughout the whole genome, not just in coding genes. Why would mutations in regulatory DNA not be just as prone to inheritance and selection as mutations in coding DNA? IOW why would the changing distribution of such modified regulatory mechanisms in a population not be an evolutionary process?

Well, the regulatory processes effect the expression of genes; the act in effect like enhancers, inhibitors, and switches. Indeed, frequently groups of genes work in concert to effect changes in the organism.

quote:

Rather than allowing for evolution, that is the development of separate populations as a result of genetic modification,

quote:

And they act on already extant genetic capabilities, rather than gradual accumulating in such a manner so as to produce news capabilities.

quote:

So while in the very general sense they certainly allow for change, in another very real sense they limit change by allowing a population great plasticity in response to various environmental factors.

quote:

In short, an inherently plastic population doesn’t need to evolve new capabilities.

quote:

Well all genetic variation is heritable;

quote:

not all genetic variation leads to separate evolutionary pathways,

quote:

or can demonstrated to produce, through gradual accumulation of incidental change, significantly different body plans, organs, or capabilities.

quote:

From an evolutionary standpoint, the question would be whether affecting the expression of genes has import for reproductive success. How is that question answered differently whether the change is in the gene itself or in something that affects its expression? If you get an inheritable change in an organism--by whatever means---you get the basic material of evolution. I really don't see that the emphasis on changing gene expression as opposed to changing genes per se has much bearing on the question of species change. One way or another you have an reproducible variation.

quote:

I think you may be misunderstanding the relationship of genetic modification to speciation. Genetic modification does not directly produce new species unless it creates a barrier to reproduction. In most forms of cladistic speciation, temporary reproductive barriers occur first and this is what leads to the genetic divergence. Genetic divergence may or may not lead to permanent reproductive barriers.

quote:

???? How could they possibly act on non-extant genetic capabilities? Every new capacity has to be derived from existing capacities. In this respect, I think Darwin was brilliant to use the term "descent with modification". It emphasizes that there is always a prior existing form and the newer form is a modification of that, not a de novo invention.

quote:

I expect that will be demonstrated as we continue long-term observations. But it may be more a matter of discovering which genetic factors produced the existing body plans and organs, etc than observing a new development. That is where molecular biology can make significant contributions to the knowledge of evolution. Mapping out which genes affect which traits through which mechanisms. We may have a map of the genome, but to date we know very very little indeed about what most DNA sequences actually do and what factors govern the way they are expressed. The concept of genes has changed a lot, and I've heard some proposals that it is no longer a useful model and should be discarded altogether.

quote:

Just how do you think to get adaptation without evolution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Just how do you think to get adaptation without evolution?

Maybe you should read those 1000+ articles on adaptation I alluded to! Finches remain finches, fruit flies remain fruit flies, Madeira mice remain Madeira mice, peppered moths remain peppered moths, Staph aureus remains Staph aureus, guppies remain guppies...need I go on ad nauseum, gluadys? There is no evolution occurring!

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Just how do you think to get adaptation without evolution?

Maybe you should read those 1000+ articles on adaptation I alluded to! Finches remain finches, fruit flies remain fruit flies, Madeira mice remain Madeira mice, peppered moths remain peppered moths, Staph aureus remains Staph aureus, guppies remain guppies...need I go on ad nauseum, gluadys? There is no evolution occurring!

You have just verified that you don't know how evolution works. Of course, finches remain finches, fruit flies remain fruit flies, Madeira mice remain Madeira mice, etc. etc..

That fulfills the prediction of evolutionary theory! If they did not do so, that would falsify evolutionary theory!

Come back when you understand phylogeny and the nested hierarchy.

quote:

You have just verified that you don't know how evolution works. Of course, finches remain finches, fruit flies remain fruit flies, Madeira mice remain Madeira mice, etc. etc..

That fulfills the prediction of evolutionary theory! If they did not do so, that would falsify evolutionary theory!

Come back when you understand phylogeny and the nested hierarchy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, the difference is whether the changes can be effected by already present information in the genome, or whether the changes require that novel information be acquired by the genome.

quote:

For example, if I am in a car that is going across a bridge, and I realize that the bridge is beginning to fall, it may be that to effect my survival all I need to do is push down hard on the accelerator, and get off the bridge before it collapses. Or it may be that the bridge is collapsing fast enough that such an action isn’t sufficient, in which case, it would be beneficial for my vehicle to have additional structures, like wings or a flotation device which would prevent it from sinking into the water below.

quote:

I need something novel to effect survival.

quote:

Indeed, in many case of what are considered classic examples of Darwinian evolution (like Galapagos finches) what we see is really the natural rhythms of regulation responding to the environemt, and not the development of novel variation.

quote:

Well, yes, exactly, this is exactly the question we are considering; can simple accumulations of extant genetic information produce novel genetic information

quote:

so as to produce new body plans, structures and capabilities? I mean, I assume you will agree that respect to organisms without a skeleton, a skeleton is wholly novel?

quote:

You have just verified that you don't know how evolution works. Of course, finches remain finches, fruit flies remain fruit flies, Madeira mice remain Madeira mice, etc. etc..

That fulfills the prediction of evolutionary theory! If they did not do so, that would falsify evolutionary theory

quote:

Come back when you understand phylogeny and the nested hierarchy.

quote:

because it’s fairly obvious evolutionists are at a loss here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

]"Ouch, baby!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You have just verified that you don't know how evolution works. Of course, finches remain finches, fruit flies remain fruit flies, Madeira mice remain Madeira mice, etc. etc..

That fulfills the prediction of evolutionary theory! If they did not do so, that would falsify evolutionary theory!

Come back when you understand phylogeny and the nested hierarchy.

Yes, please come back drmark and explain to how it is that a process can both maintain the fidelity of a ‘species’ and simultaneously originate new ones, because it’s fairly obvious evolutionists are at a loss here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
I cannot know how a process that has never occurred, is never occurring, and will never occur is working! Is English your first language, gluadys?

quote:

maybe you need to define "novel". Otherwise I am having difficulty seeing how this is an evolutionary relevant difference.

quote:

Sure, but evolution does not offer beneficial changes at the point of need. (That is why mutations are called random. They do not occur in respect of current need.) In the latter case you will survive if your car is already equipped with wings, flotation devices, etc. And if cars were biologically reproducing entities only cars with such equipment would survive the catastrophe and all future progeny would be born with the same equipment. That is species change, that is evolution.

quote:

The variation has to exist before the need for it exists or at least before the species is wiped out. Whether the variation is a stronger force on the gas pedal or a set of wings is not particularly relevant. But obviously it is a more complex matter to get the set of wings. You can generate the stronger push on the pedal with (probably) one simple molecular change. The wings will take many changes over a long time. But nothing suggests that wings are anything other than a modification of a tetrapod forelimb.

quote:

You may need it, but if you don't already have it, you won't survive.

quote:

Yet they still speciated. So what difference does it make that the variation was not "novel"?

quote:

Again, I think we have to define "novel". Is a novel re-arrangement of extant information not novel enough? What if re-arranging or re-inforcing or duplicating or deleting some portion of the extant information produces variations which impact on reproductive success? How does that not change the species?

quote:

Sure, but that does not mean they don't have the capacity to produce a skeleton. Any cell that can secrete calcium can contribute to the generation of a skeleton.

quote:

And what we see is that a full tetrapodal skeleton did not appear all at once. You get simple notochords before you get skeletons at all. You get cartilaginous skeletons before bony skeletons. You get cranial bones before corporal bones. And so forth. There is no indication that small sequential genetic changes would be incapable of producing such sequential steps. Nor that anything terribly novel in terms of capacity is needed.