[Credendovidis]

I don't know why we don't do this?

Creationism and ID are items that are religion based, and therefore should be or can be part of the school curriculum in the section philosophy or religion.
Evolution is science based, and therefore should be part of the school curriculum in the science of physics section.

:)

[michealb]

Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing.

[asking]

I think we all speak fluent sarcasm here. :)

[Credendovidis]

Sure : sarcasm is all that, but an appropriate smilie helps to indicate that !

And yes, many experts on this board . Experts from all different world views !

What else should be expected when the ICR's hypocrisy is the topic's subject ?

:D

[inthebox]

To me, all new mutations are new information, so I don't really know what would satisfy in that department. Gene replication followed by separate mutations is so obvious. But I guess Sassy wants a specific trait. The problem is that you can see genetic mutations all the time but you can't know which ones will turn out to have been useful until generations pass and you can see the results. So the question is, by definition, unanswerable. It's not about whether it's right or not. But it is the nature of evolution that you can only answer that particular question retrospectively.

So we are back to the mutation is good argument when the objective scientific evidence proves otherwise.




https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post1203474

So you can't know and unaswerable? So evolution relies on faith :cool:

What are the specific mutated genes that caused human speech [ compared with other primates ] ?

What mutated genes caused bipedalism? Religious belief? Alturism? Self awareness?
Artistry? Love? Charity?

[inthebox]

I thought that the experiment that produced E coli that could process citrate was a pretty compelling for mutations being able to add useful code but I'm not a biology student what do I know. :)
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

The creationist argument for the tails in humans is that it's not really a tail it just looks like a tail. It's just a clump of skin since most of the time the tail doesn't have any bones in it.

Rehashing microevolution?


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post1186182

[Credendovidis]

What about the topic? The invalidity of the arguments and the deliberate misleading by the ICR to oppose scientific research and findings, in it's quest to "spread the word"??

Isn't there anything beyond immoral and unethical thinking for the ICR ?
Do you approve spreading deliberate lies to "spread the word"??

:rolleyes:

·

·

[asking]

So we are back to the mutation is good argument when the objective scientific evidence proves otherwise.




https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post1203474

So you can't know and unaswerable? So evolution relies on faith :cool:

What are the specific mutated genes that caused human speech [ compared with other primates ] ?

What mutated genes caused bipedalism? religious belief? alturism? self awareness?
artistry? love? charity?

Mutations are either both good and bad or neither depending on how you look at it. Basically, they are amoral. They are just changes. Whether they make an organism behave well or badly is in the eye of the beholder. Whether they make an organism more fit for its current environment or less fit depends on the current environment (and not future environment). So it makes no sense to say mutations are good, or bad.

Saying mutations are bad is like saying rain is always bad. But the opposite isn't true either.

As for bipedalism etc, large numbers of genes (and ALL genes are mutated) cause all those things, not single genes. There isn't ONE gene for such traits, or indeed most traits. Very few traits are single gene traits. In school students are only taught about really obvious deleterious recessives, but that doesn't mean that's all there is.

Anyway, there is endless evidence for behavioral traits like the ones you mention having a genetic basis. That DOESN'T mean that behavior is ALL genetic, I hasten to add. But it does mean that a proportion of personality and tendencies to behave in certain ways are inherited, in both humans and non human animals. That's why you can breed for gentleness in domestic animals or aggressiveness if you want something that fights or hunts. But those genes for behavior are often linked to other traits.

For example, when some researchers tried to domestic foxes being raised for their fur, they got foxes that were easier to deal with--more like dogs. BUT the foxes barked like dogs (and fox puppies), which adult foxes don't normally do AND the fox's fur was all different colors, like dogs'. So the fur was ruined by breeding for that puppy-like, eager to please trait. That's why it's much harder to find the exact set of genes for a given trait, because it's probably a whole bunch of genes, each of which does 10 different things. So in the wild, those puppylike behaviors are not "good" in an adult fox. But in the lab, they become "good," because we want them.

[asking]

What about the topic? The invalidity of the arguments and the deliberate misleading by the ICR to oppose scientific research and findings, in it's quest to "spread the word" ???

Isn't there anything beyond immoral and unethical thinking for the ICR ?
Do you approve spreading deliberate lies to "spread the word" ???

:rolleyes:

·

·

I think it IS immoral to lie about science, to deliberately promulgate ignorance. But that's just my brand of morality. And I know that people have different ways of justifying these things--chief among them, lying to themselves. To a degree, everyone deceives themselves about things they don't want to deal with. For me, the question about the individual members of the ICR is, How cynical are they? I don't know that without getting to know them better as individuals.

I doubt any of these people would cop to spreading lies. They will just turn it around and accuse biologists of spreading lies, of being in a vast conspiracy of hundreds of thousands (more?) scientists, all covering up the truth. I wonder how many biologists there are in the world?

[inthebox]

Mutations are either both good and bad or neither depending on how you look at it. Basically, they are amoral. They are just changes. Whether they make an organism behave well or badly is in the eye of the beholder. Whether they make an organism more fit for its current environment or less fit depends on the current environment (and not future environment). So it makes no sense to say mutations are good, or bad.

Saying mutations are bad is like saying rain is always bad. But the opposite isn't true either.

As for bipedalism etc, large numbers of genes (and ALL genes are mutated) cause all those things, not single genes. There isn't ONE gene for such traits, or indeed most traits. Very few traits are single gene traits. In school students are only taught about really obvious deleterious recessives, but that doesn't mean that's all there is.

Anyway, there is endless evidence for behavioral traits like the ones you mention having a genetic basis. That DOESN'T mean that behavior is ALL genetic, I hasten to add. But it does mean that a proportion of personality and tendencies to behave in certain ways are inherited, in both humans and non human animals. That's why you can breed for gentleness in domestic animals or aggressiveness if you want something that fights or hunts. But those genes for behavior are often linked to other traits.

For example, when some researchers tried to domestic foxes being raised for their fur, they got foxes that were easier to deal with--more like dogs. BUT the foxes barked like dogs (and fox puppies), which adult foxes don't normally do AND the fox's fur was all different colors, like dogs'. So the fur was ruined by breeding for that puppy-like, eager to please trait. That's why it's much harder to find the exact set of genes for a given trait, because it's probably a whole bunch of genes, each of which does 10 different things. So in the wild, those puppylike behaviors are not "good" in an adult fox. But in the lab, they become "good," because we want them.

"Mutations are amoral"

Tell that to women with the brca mutation - surely anyone with commonsense knows that that is a bad mutation. Or those with the mutated genes for digeorge's, alzheimer's, colon cancer, etc...


See the links to I've provided.

Survival Of The Fittest: Even Cancer Cells Follow The Laws Of Evolution

500,000 cancer mutation records from the Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer database

Now how about actually naming the "beneficial" mutations? Prove it.


Here is another commonsense question:

If the very first cars broke down every mile for every mile they functioned, how far do you think consumers would have demanded them. Would there be any consumer demand [ selection ] for them?

Evolutionists would have us believe that the primary means of evolving is mutations yet the objective scientific evidence demonstrates that mutations are harmful

[michealb]

Don't you get the science channel? They just had a show on two nights ago where they were talking about human mutants. They had on this one guy who was able to run 13 miles bare foot in his underwear in the snow in -27F degree weather. Not one did this guy live but he didn't suffer from frost bite. Sounds like a good mutation to me at least if you live in a cold weather area at least might be a bad mutation if you live in the Caribbean.

[sassyT]

I think the point that most evolutionist are making is that we don't have extraordinary claim and that all evidence point to evolution. If you have a different claim have it fit all of the evidence if you have a extraordinary supernatural claim point us to the evidence of something supernatural. Then we will listen to you too. Otherwise you are just fanatic. While this may be my opinion I think it fits with general reasoning which we should all use to govern our lives.

Hmmm... I am yet to see evidence for Macro evolution. As far as I am concerned there is NONE. But again, you are welcome to prove me wrong. ;)

[sassyT]

Thats kind of why I used that argument. Of course I've already read what the creationist say about the human tail so I know what she is going to come back with. I think it still answers her challenge though.

No actually it doesn't answer my challenge because that so called "tail" is not "new" information.
The Indian baby's "tail", like nearly all cases of human "tails", is not a tail. It doesn't have any bones in it neither does it have a nerve cord.
That so called tail is nothing but skin and fatty tissue, and can easily be cut off.
As biologist Dr. Gary Parker once said about these fatty tumor "tails": “So far as I know, no one claims we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.”

So that does not constitute new information, sorry :(

Again, a Human baby born with feathers, fish scales, pigs feet, dog ears, hooves, cat claws, wiskers, four legs, something along those lines, would constitute new information. Or if you can show me a bird that hatches with scales instead of feathers or a fish that hatches with dog like fur instead of scales... etc

[asking]

No actually it doesnt answer my challange because that so called "tail" is not "new" information.
The Indian baby's "tail", like nearly all cases of human "tails", is not a tail. It doesn't have any bones in it neither does it have a nerve cord.
That so called tail is nothing but skin and fatty tissue, and can easily be cut off.
As biologist Dr. Gary Parker once said about these fatty tumor "tails": “So far as I know, no one claims we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.”

Sassy, please see what I posted on this earlier. According to the source I posted most of these tails are true tails--about 2/3rds and have nerves and blood vessels. And some even have vertebrae. The Barbary macaque's vestigial tail has no vertebrae, so there's a consistent pattern there. It makes sense that when we rarely grow tails, they wouldn't have vertebrae most of the time. I read that some tails have as many as 5 vertebrae. That's a lot (and so creepy!).

So that does not constitute new information, sorry :(

I agree it's not new information, but that's only because we are carrying genetic information for structures we no longer use. We have the genes to make tails because we are descended from animals that had tails. In any case, the embryonic tail is unquestionably homologous with the tails of other vertebrates, including reptiles and birds. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier, birds carry the genetic information to make regular teeth, even though modern birds have no teeth. There are lots of examples like these.

Again, a Human baby born with feathers, fish scales, pigs feet, dog ears, hooves, cat claws, wiskers, four legs, something along those lines, would constitute new information. Or if you can show me a bird that hatches with scales instead of feathers or a fish that hatches with dog like fur instead of scales...etc

Birds' legs do have scales on them. Check out the chicken legs at the butcher's.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

Sassy, please see what I posted on this earlier. According to the source I posted most of these tails are true tails--about 2/3rds and have nerves and blood vessels. And some even have vertebrae. The Barbary macaque's vestigial tail has no vertebrae, so there's a consistent pattern there. It makes sense that when we rarely grow tails, they wouldn't have vertebrae most of the time. I read that some tails have as many as 5 vertebrae. That's a lot (and so creepy!).

Hi Asking please see attatched photo and tell me if that's a tail...

So that does not constitute new information, sorry :(

I agree it's not new information, but that's only because we are carrying genetic information for structures we no longer use. We have the genes to make tails because we are descended from animals that had tails. In any case, the embryonic tail is unquestionably homologous with the tails of other vertebrates, including reptiles and birds. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier, birds carry the genetic information to make regular teeth, even though modern birds have no teeth. There are lots of examples like these.

Wow wow wow, wait a minute... Did we evolve from monkeys or apes? Monkeys generally have tails and apes don't. If evolutionists believe that the "tail" is evidence that we evolved from monkey-type creatures, why do they insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes, which don't have tails? Which is it?
And isn't natural selection supposed to favor improvements, and not impediments? Why then would natural selection cause something as useful as a tail to wither into an encumbrance and then disappear?
I personaly think a tail would be very useful to humans. Like right now, I could use a tail sip my tea while I type.. :D

Birds' legs do have scales on them. Check out the chicken legs at the butcher's.

Asking I am talking about a bird born with fish scales instead of feathers.

[Capuchin]

If evolutionists believe that the "tail" is evidence that we evolved from monkey-type creatures, why do they insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes, which don't have tails? which is it?

Sassy, hun, apes evolved from animals with tails too.

[asking]

[QUOTE=sassyT]Hi Asking please see attatched photo and tell me if that's a tail... [QUOTE]

Where is attachment? In any case, it wouldn't help. I think you need to be an expert and have it in front of you to tell the difference between a true tail and a pseudo tail. There ARE pseudo tails, as Creationists often point out, but not all human tails are pseudo tails. As I said, most are real enough, though decidedly weird.

wow wow wow, wait a minute... Did we evolve from monkeys or apes?

Both! Great Apes (chimps, bonobos, orangutans, and gorillas) are all old world animals (Africa and Asia). They are descended from a lineage of primates that were more monkey like and had tails. The "New World" monkeys (South America) are, confusingly, a more ancient lineage than the "Old World" monkeys. So to sum up, apes are descended from ancient monkeys (not modern ones, but we'd call them monkeys if they were alive today).

And that's why both human embryos and ape embryos start with tails, too. The tail is absorbed early in development as the genes sort of remember they aren't supposed to make a tail (I'm anthropomorphizing here, so I don't mean that literally).

If evolutionists believe that the "tail" is evidence that we evolved from monkey-type creatures, why do they insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes, which don't have tails? Which is it?

Both. Monkeylike ancestor --> Apelike ancestor --> Hominid (A. afarensis, A. africans, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc) --> Homo sapiens

And isn't natural selection supposed to favor improvements, and not impediments?

Not exactly. Selection favors whatever works in the moment. At some point, tails must have become an impediment.

Why then would natural selection cause something as useful as a tail to wither into an encumbrance and then disappear?

Good question, Sassy! I don't know the answer. Probably some paleoprimatologist does though. We could look it up. At the risk of patronizing you, I want to say that this is one of the things I like about you. You ask good questions and think well.

I personaly think a tail would be very useful to humans. Like right now, I could use a tail sip my tea while I type.. :D

Me too! I think it sounds like fun. But none of the apes have them and it looks like they lost them a long time ago, 25 or 30 million years ago.

Actually, Richard Dawkins also thinks it's an interesting question too. Here's his book, The Ancestor's Tale, at Google books.

The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to ... - Google Book Search

Asking I am talking about a bird born with fish scales instead of feathers.

Yeah. But you can't argue with them having both. :) Enjoy your tea.

[michealb]

Perhaps it's the fault of women, we have no tails. Sexual selection can play a part in evolution as well. Which can get rid of a useful trait because for some reason the sexual selector of the species decides as a group they don't like that feature.

[asking]

Perhaps its the fault of women, we have no tails. Sexual selection can play a part in evolution as well. Which can get rid of a useful trait because for some reason the sexual selector of the species decides as a group they don't like that feature.

Yeah, blame it on Eve. ;) That kind of selection more often only affects the males anyway (think peacocks' tails), not both sexes, and, anyway, the males are active participants in the process, flaunting their fancy colors and trying to out do each other with eye-catching displays. And the fighting equipment, horns and antlers, gets selected by other males more than by the females, as they fight each other for the right to monopolize females.

Michealb, I'll confess right now that this is a biological pet peeve of mine and I really ought to put it in that other thread. :) The idea that any kind of selection, sexual or otherwise, can select for maladaptive traits is just wrong, so even if you were right about our tails, there would be no "fault."

By definition, selection selects what leaves the most offspring in that generation. Period. (No planning for the future involved.) It doesn't matter whether the selective force is random fluctuations in temperature, an increase in rainfall or predators, or female preference. (Often enough it's a combination of different forces, many of them conflicting.) Bottom line, it's still selection for what works BEST in that generation. The idea that females somehow -- differently from all other selective forces -- do something *bad* is just nonsensical--although, unfortunately, it's still presented that way in many textbooks. We need to let go of this idea. It's bad biology AND one of the sillier forms of sexism, in my humble opinion. Just as we don't say that mutations are good or bad, we don't assign moral value to selective forces found in nature*.

(*I would personally argue that selecting for dogs that have major disabilities like hip dysplasia or apnea is a form of cruelty, however.)

I know I've really gotten off Cred's topic now. Sorry.

[inthebox]

Don't you get the science channel? They just had a show on two nights ago where they were talking about human mutants. They had on this one guy who was able to run 13 miles bare foot in his underwear in the snow in -27F degree weather. Not one did this guy live but he didn't suffer from frost bite. Sounds like a good mutation to me at least if you live in a cold weather area at least might be a bad mutation if you live in the Caribbean.

I saw that too!

Amazing, how about the blind painter, or the adult human calculator or the synesthetic.

I wonder what exact genes led to this ability?