Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum evolutionISM

Trilobyte is clearly uninterested in learning anything. You seem like the typical religious fundamentalist who argues evolution without actually having a foundation of knowledge in biology. You are also argue about odds without much knowledge of statistics.

I really don't understand the mentality of people who think they can overturn what is probably THE most well-backed theory in ANY of the sciences without some basic knowledge. Not only that, but you seem to think that tens of thousands of scientists, over almost 150 years, overlooked something simple, and that you found it.

I find it rather funny how you evo-babblers continue to claim I'm not interested in learning anything...but whan i ask you evo-babblers a question...you run and hide.

Seems like you evo-babblers would rather hide behind your fantasy rather than explain it.

So once again..I want to learn...show me how random mutations add up over time to form a new body part, organ or appendage.

There has been no hiding. You are not asking questions. You initiate your insulting blather and then whine when you are treated as you deserve. What you want is the privilege of being obnoxious with impunity.

No, you don't want to learn. You want to blather and pretend like you're thinking.

youve been given the answers, yet you refuse to accept them, rather choise to run and hide with supieroir than thou atitude and claim no one gives you answers. If you would look, you would see the answers. instead you choise close your eyes to them and to claim no one gives them.

Trilobyte, it seems the thing you don't understand about evolution is that it is actually a complex blend of inbreeding and hybrid vigour.

We know from Dairy cattle that most mutations on the DNA are harmful and they lead to recessive genes. I'll work on finding a site. But BLAD is the first one I think of. It causes deformities in calves with a double recessive and they die some months before they're born. Not an advantage for either the calf or the farmer. Scientists have even worked out which bull spread BLAD around the world. Selection acts on these mutations. But selection doesn't act on the DNA or the genes. It can only act on individuals the express the gene.


To get a double recessive gene you normally have to have inbreeding within an isolated population. Genes advantageous to the species as a whole therefore usually first appear in isolated populations. Their spread into the wider population can be aided by hybrid vigour as the gene spreads through a hybrid zone. The postinf Out of Asia not Africa shows this process was inportant during the development of Homo erectus. Presumably it's still important for our evolution.

Hope this explanation is simple enough.

The question is not how a mutation can occur, be presented as beneficial, then spread into a population.....but, rather, once this has occurred..how can a second beneficial mutation occur in just the right spot as to add to the last beneficial mutation that happened generations ago?

How does it beat the odds?

A simple claim that it does is not an answer.

most likely it will not occur in the next generation. the next mutation will not likely occur in the same spot. the next one that is in that spot will likely not be benifical and will be lost.

many of the mutations actually occur not just because of something happening in the genes, but because of something in the enviroment causing it. lets take an example of the rabbit. it has been a long long time with lots of snow, over time those rabbits have had to have white fur. now the glacers are melting and the ground is not so white. The white fur stands out. Along comes a rabbit with a mutation that causes his fur to turn to brown during the summer. he survives and eats will and grow strong, while his nest mates are all eaten. He is able to pass on the brown/white gene. Years later, the snow stops coming in the winter, but the bunnies keep turning white. once again they are at risk. Along comes another mutation that stops the color changes. again the one that has them is able to survive and his children do very well.

this is evolution. The planet changes, so life must change to adapt or it dies. Mutations are a constant thing. most of the mutations are not of benifit most of the time so are lost in a few generations. A bunny that had brown fur during the ice age would not have survived to pass on his gene: a bunny that had all white fur when there was no ice would not have survived. both were benifical, but only during the correct enviromental situations.

WILL YOU EVOS STOP IT WITH THE SINGLE MUTATION THEORY.

You guys do realize that it takes many, many mutations to occur again and again in just the right spot to form a new body part, appendage or organ.

NOW STOP DANCING AROUND THE ISSUE.

How do all of those required RANDOM beneficial mutation happen in just the right place?

Do you evos even have a clue as to what you believe?

Then again you were force fed this junk in school and know no better.

De Hammer posted:

Just like that De hammer? Along comes a mutation?????

And then I suppose another mutation...just so happened to come along and changed the fur even browner....followed by yet another mutation that that also just so happens to come along.


What a messed up theory....It's based on speculation and assumptions.

You claim these mutations happen but can't support your theory.

Your poor theory need fantasy statements like the one above..."Along comes a rabbit with a mutation"...that ___________________(fill in the blank).


...I hear the evo-wheels spinning in the mud.

"What a messed up theory....It's based on speculation and assumptions."

Fortunately, the people whose opinions count have actually done some homework on the subject. Astonishingly they disagree with you.

The theory is based on observation, testing, meticulous documentation.

"You claim these mutations happen but can't support your theory."

Actual practicing scientists make those claims and they have written their experiments and conclusions up in scientific journals - the journals you consider yourself too intelligent to read.

You are a waste of breath. You are intellectually lazy. You lie. And you are an intellectual coward.

Hey TheFallibleFiend,
Do me a favor...either put up or SHUT UP.

perhaps the evidence that they existed at all in conditions that the brown rabbit could not survive because its too easy to spot, then a while later, they exist in conditions that white rabbits could not has something to do with the theory.

please explain how can a rabbit exist both in a very white envirenment and a very dark one both, yet have the same basic gene structure. there is more than enough evidence that they both existed, and that one was the decendant of the other. there is also evidence from people that lived during that time that they were white, then later that they were brown.

as i said mutations are a lot more frequent that you are willing to accept. Just because the dont show up in humans as often as you think they would, does not mean they arent there. heres one example. during the first century ad, the average higth for men was 5'5" feet tall. now its 5'10 and climbing. That might not seem like much, but then you have people that are over 7 foot tall. There is no record of people in the middle ages even being that tall. Not to mention that that is only 2000 years. There was a time out ancestors woere only 3 foot tall or there about. There has been a constant increase in higth. How does it occur? mutations.

why dont you do us a favor and read what we are telling you, and either find a way of actually refuting it (other than by ignoring it or simply saying its not there) or shutting up yourself.

"Hey TheFallibleFiend,
Do me a favor...either put up or SHUT UP."

I've already put up. You are too lazy to read.

refence for BLAD for those interested in adding to their understanding of evolution:

http://www.immgen.com/Services/Traits/BLAD.html

dehammer
Why do we have redhaeds and blonds?:

dehammer also said:
Do you have a reference that increased heigth is caused by "MUTATIONS"????

You claimed it, now can you prove your claim....or did you claim it because you thought it sounded good?

I'm devoutly agnostic, I neither know nor care.

This weeks new scientist seems to be backing evolution again with the discovery of a missing link in the fish to land part of the story, hundreds of millions of years ago.
Fish with necks, whatever next?

Hight it caused by genes. that is well known. im sure if you take the time to search you will find what your looking for. The very fact that a few centuries ago no one was as tall as 7 foot, yet now we have several is proof enough that the genes are changing. That means a small mutations must be occuring.

the evidence of our first ancestors to walk upright, indicated that they were about three feet tall. how does one race get from three feet tall to 7 feet unless genes change.

Trilobyte, you asked:

Why do we have redhaeds and blonds?: (whatever a redhaed is, is it Norwegian?)

What is your answer?

My question:

If all people on earth are descended from just one couple, either Adam and Eve or Noah and his wife, why do we observe regional variations? Surely some form of evolution is the only answer.

If the bible is correct and noah's family was the only survivors of the flood, and it occured less than 4000 years ago, then how did native americans get here 20000 years ago and why do they look so much different than Noah who was middle eastener. how did the chineese get so different. how did so many different genes come from one family?