Mutations

[david23]

or you can always do DNA comparison between worms centipedes and whatever and get a phylogenic tree to show who originated from who. There are a lot of premade models of mutation, gene drift and all the other evolution causing agents. You basically then compare your data to them.

[supersport]

How can you tell that it's a mutation? Morphology.

no you can't. The same genes are used across the spectrum of nature to construct different animals. Scientists can tell no more by looking at genes than they can by looking at phenotype. Humans share 90-something percent of genes with mice, for example.

[supersport]

or you can always do DNA comparison between worms centipedes and whatever and get a phylogenic tree to show who originated from who. There are a lot of premade models of mutation, gene drift and all the other evolution causing agents. You basically then compare your data to them.

that is not scientific validation. Likewise I could look at the molecular composition of salt and compare it to potassium....the fact that they are different in no way suggests that one evovled from the other -- or that it's even possible. I'm looking for scientific validation that mutations can create beneficial phenotypic effects.

[mith]

How can you tell that it's a mutation? Morphology.

no you can't. The same genes are used across the spectrum of nature to construct different animals. Scientists can tell no more by looking at genes than they can by looking at phenotype. Humans share 90-something percent of genes with mice, for example.

Right, so we examine a panda's paw. At the place where there is supposed to be a wrist bone we find an enlarged bone that functions as a thumb. What conclusions can we draw?

[supersport]

where's the validation that the thumb got there by way of mutation? How can you be so sure this animal wasn't just created this way or that the thumb got there by way of an epigenetic phenomenon?

[mith]

What do you mean by just created that way? Are you proposing that pandas are created and unrelated to anything else genetically?

[supersport]

What do you mean by just created that way? Are you proposing that pandas are created and unrelated to anything else genetically?

I mean created by the Creator.

Are you asking if I think pandas descended from something other than a panda? I don't know the answer to that for sure. It's hard to say if all bears branched out from one "kind" of bear or if God made multiple "kinds" of bears. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't specify.

[mith]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Come back with specific questions when you've finished reading up on how phylogenetics, radiocarbon dating and evolution works. Otherwise we'll be talking in different languages.

[supersport]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Come back with specific questions when you've finished reading up on how phylogenetics, radiocarbon dating and evolution works. Otherwise we'll be talking in different languages.

Oh, I'm quite aware of how evolution works....which is why I know that mutations do not help the cause of ToE. You can have a fancy theory, but if the evidence (ie..validation of mechanism) doesn't support it, then it must be scrapped.

Let me ask you...do you believe it would be a contradiction to ToE (or do you believe it's even possible) for traits acquired during the lifetime of an animal due to a response to the environment to be inherited?

[AstusAleator]

How about this: Rather than turning this into another creation/evolution "debate" why don't we just continue to address the original topic? It's an interesting question, and one I'd like to see explored more.

[mith]

that is not scientific validation. Likewise I could look at the molecular composition of salt and compare it to potassium....the fact that they are different in no way suggests that one evovled from the other -- or that it's even possible. I'm looking for scientific validation that mutations can create beneficial phenotypic effects.

It's a poor analogy because no one claims that potassium and chlorine are the "parents" of salt. But composition-wise you'd have to agree that one is created from components of the other. Somehow somewhere potassium and chlorine have to be involved to make KCl.

And to me it seems more like you don't quite understand how relatedness is compared. You say that mice and men have 90% in common. I'm not sure if the number is accurate but for the sake of argument lets say it is. But because there are only 4 bases , if you have two unrelated sequences you still get 25% similarity. So what does a 90% or 95% threshold of similarity mean? Is 90% really closely related or not?

Plus you specified that the genes are 90% common. Some 95% of your DNA is non-coding. Are those differences going to be a factor?

We've seen the hox gene being mutated to create whole legs in fruitflies, how hard would it be to enlarge a wrist bone? Granted the fruitfly is a lot more simpler, but why can't the same mechanism be used to explain the panda's thumb?

Let's say that epigenetics was at work here. What is the extent of its power? Do we have analogous cases ? If everything could be explained through epigenetics why do we have different DNA?

[alextemplet]

Are you asking if I think pandas descended from something other than a panda? I don't know the answer to that for sure. It's hard to say if all bears branched out from one "kind" of bear or if God made multiple "kinds" of bears. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't specify.

The "kinds" argument has more holes in it than a sieve. First of all, how do you define "kind"? Is it a genus? A family? An order? No one has ever given a clear definition, and I suspect it is so that they can simply wait for proof of an evolutionary lineage to be proven, and then claim that it doesn't matter because all the species involved are of the same "kind." I could just as easily claim that all vertebrates are the same "kind," and so it should be no problem to accept man's common ancestry with apes. It's a simple yet illogical fall-back argument that you can cling to even when your case has been disproven. I'm sorry, but in this forum we'll need legitimate scientific theories, and scientific terminology, not vague references to "kinds."

And since you mentioned the Bible, I would suggest you read it a little more carefully. I've read Genesis more times than I can remember and I am at a loss to figure out where it disagrees with modern scientific theory. In fact, the two are remarkably compatible.