RJHinds evolution thread

Originally posted by twhitehead
Would you care to clarify what you mean by 'evolution' and 'breeding' in your post.
I generally understand 'evolution' to mean 'the change of a life form, species, or population over time / generations'. So by my understanding it [b]is evolution - so is selective breeding as carried out by man.
But you say 'due' to evolution, so maybe you are referr ...[text shortened]... he theory is that of common descent, but I do not see how this would be relevant here.[/b]

Sure with breeding nothing changes except a trait is targeted to enhance, dogs
can be bread to be larger or smaller, meaner or docile, but in the end you have
dogs no matter the size or disposition of the dog. Evolving would be taking a
worm like creature over time and turning it into a tree, jellyfish, whale, or a
person.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The same way I think there are more white rabbits in colder climates with snow,
they live better there so there are more of them, rabbits that stand out are
easier to pick off in the wild verses those that blend in.
Kelly

So Penguin apparently misunderstood you?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sure with breeding nothing changes except a trait is targeted to enhance, dogs
can be bread to be larger or smaller, meaner or docile, but in the end you have
dogs no matter the size or disposition of the dog. Evolving would be taking a
worm like creature over time and turning it into a tree, jellyfish, whale, or a
person.
Kelly

So you define 'evolution' differently from the rest of us. Thats fine, but keep in mind that when we use the word, we include what you call breeding.

Regarding your original post about a mutation in hair being too small to matter, consider that in most populations, there is usually a wide variety of each characteristic which is built up over time due to the mutations being discussed. So if the weather gets colder there will usually already be a number of individuals with longer than average hair - often due to more than one mutation. This is what farmers take advantage of, and what you call breeding. However, the origin of the varying hair lengths is mutations (thus overall, it would be evolution by your definition I believe).

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you define 'evolution' differently from the rest of us. Thats fine, but keep in mind that when we use the word, we include what you call breeding.

Regarding your original post about a mutation in hair being too small to matter, consider that in most populations, there is usually a wide variety of each characteristic which is built up over time due t ...[text shortened]... hair lengths is mutations (thus overall, it would be evolution by your definition I believe).

Define evolution differently than the rest of you, maybe. I'm talking about what it
is being credited for which is the rise of organs and systems within living creatures
that were not there before. If dogs get heavier coats during cold weather that could
just as easy be by design, evolution does not have make it happen by mutation.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If dogs get heavier coats during cold weather that could
just as easy be by design, evolution does not have make it happen by mutation.
Kelly

I think the only question at this stage is whether you agree such mutations can happen, and whether you agree they do happen.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"In what way is that not evolution? Success in breeding is the selection mechanism of the evolutionary process: those with traits that improve their chance of breeding (eg resistance to a desease) are more likely to breed in the presence of that deseae than those without such traits. This is exactly what evolution is!

However, I think there is a danger t if
our bodies are built to do that, that maybe evidence for a good design as well.
Kelly

Have you been following Proper Knobs sequence of posts from the start? I think the relevant one was his second post on this page:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=138350&page=&page=20

where he talks about mutations. He doesn't explicitly say what kind of mutations can occur but we certainly know about the following 3
- changing of the 'letters' in an existing sequence
- duplication of a sequence
- deletion of a sequence

Maybe that was your sticking point. I will try to summarise the points thus far...
1 - Do you agree that DNA encodes physical characteristics?
2 - Do you agree that the inheritance of physical characteristics is through the copying of DNA from parent to offspring?
3 - Do you agree that random errors in the copying process can occur?
4 - Do you agree that such errors can change the physical characteristics of the organism (eg hair length)?
5 - Do you agree that such changes (eg longer/shorter body hair) can give an organism a survival advantage in a changing climate? This seems to be where Kelly started disagreeing, although you did not explicitly agree to all the earlier points.
6 - Do you agree that the advantageous mutations will slowly dominate a group of organisms over time as those with the mutation are more successful at breeding than those without?
7 - Do you agree that, if a group is split in two, by geography or some other barrier, that each sub-group will gradually accumulate its own set of distinct mutations?
8 - Do you agree that, given a long enough separation, those two groups will build up enough slight variations that they actually differ by enough that they become unable or unwilling to interbreed when bought back together?

I think that is about as far as Proper Knob has got. I think Karoly and RJHinds are still with us up to number 8 but Kelly disagrees at 5, or possibly even 3.

Am I right? If so, we just need RJHinds and/or Karoly to agree with 8 and then Proper Knob can move on to 9 (although personally, I think that once you have accepted 8, it is just a case of extrapolation).

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think the only question at this stage is whether you agree such mutations can happen, and whether you agree they do happen.

What do you mean, "...such mutations can happen..." you either you can map out
what occured why, where, and how, or you have a 'belief' it could have happened!
The question at this stage is why I or anyone should believe in a mutation if
another means is also possible that it was done by design?
Kelly

Originally posted by Penguin
Have you been following Proper Knobs sequence of posts from the start? I think the relevant one was his second post on this page:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=138350&page=&page=20

where he talks about mutations. He doesn't explicitly say what kind of mutations can occur but we certainly know about the following 3
- changing ...[text shortened]... , I think that once you have accepted 8, it is just a case of extrapolation).

--- Penguin.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Not completely, since like in any code there are rules that must be followed, the
danger of getting it wrong is as likely to cause damage. It is completely possible
that to alter hair length requires several changes to occur with each randomly done?
It is not much different than miss spelling a word, you break it with a change you
ruin the whole point of the sentence.
5. Such changes as far as I'm concern have not clearly been identified as real,
it is a belief that they did! So from here on out we are in fairly tale land you can
make up the story as you desire.
6. How many mutations had to occur to push a nerve to an area to service an eye
when there wasn't an eye there before? How many mutations turned that nerve
into the type of nerve that was required to service an eye that wasn't there
before? How many mutations had to occur to build a light sensitive spot that could
connect to the nerve, that could transmit the information required to make the
data useful to the creature that never knew there was such a thing as light? How
many mutations....the list goes on and on, but since we are in fairy tale land we
don't even need a number, we can just say it could have happened this way or
that and call it science!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sure with breeding nothing changes except a trait is targeted to enhance, dogs
can be bread to be larger or smaller, meaner or docile, but in the end you have
dogs no matter the size or disposition of the dog. Evolving would be taking a
worm like creature over time and turning it into a tree, jellyfish, whale, or a
person.
Kelly

Not if it is doing well enough as a worm. 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
What do you mean, "...such mutations can happen..."

Longer hair can happen due to a single base pair change in DNA. The question being posed to you is whether or not you believe that it is possible for a life form, without direct interference from God, can, during its reproduction, make an error in copying DNA such that a single base pair gets changed.
The second question is whether you believe the above does happen in reality sometimes.

The question at this stage is why I or anyone should believe in a mutation if
another means is also possible that it was done by design?
Kelly
No. Nobody is asking you to believe in a mutation. Its not a religion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
4. Not completely, since like in any code there are rules that must be followed, the
danger of getting it wrong is as likely to cause damage. It is completely possible
that to alter hair length requires several changes to occur with each randomly done?
It is not much different than miss spelling a word, you break it with a change you
ruin the whole poin ...[text shortened]... y did! So from here on out we are in fairly tale land you can
make up the story as you desire.

The variation in hair length and curliness in dogs (for almost all breeds except some very long haired ones) is determined by just three known differences in just one gene. Note that each of those three changes gives rise to different variations, so the do not all three have to occur together.
This is not a belief, it has been identified as real.
Something similar was found with cats (in the same gene).

http://sloughi.tripod.com/sloughiworld/geneticscoatlengths.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17433015

Originally posted by KellyJay
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Not completely, since like in any code there are rules that must be followed, the
danger of getting it wrong is as likely to cause damage. It is completely possible
that to alter hair length requires several changes to occur with each randomly done?
It is not much different than miss spelling a word, you break it with a change ...[text shortened]... number, we can just say it could have happened this way or
that and call it science!
Kelly

Not completely, since like in any code there are rules that must be followed

This is true, but no one is stating that every mutation is beneficial to an organism. Most are either benign or harmful, only some are useful.

Originally posted by Penguin
Have you been following Proper Knobs sequence of posts from the start? I think the relevant one was his second post on this page:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=138350&page=&page=20

where he talks about mutations. He doesn't explicitly say what kind of mutations can occur but we certainly know about the following 3
- changing , I think that once you have accepted 8, it is just a case of extrapolation).

--- Penguin.

RJHinds has left the forum after throwing his toys out the pram because too many atheists were here. Oh well.

His name lives on in this thread title.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
RJHinds has left the forum after throwing his toys out the pram because too many atheists were here. Oh well.

His name lives on in this thread title.

Aw, bummer! I thought he was being quite receptive and reasonable too.

So we now know that Kelly has problems starting from point 4 but we have not yet found Karoly's line. Karoly, can Proper Knob continue? Do you accept his latest point?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by JS357
Not if it is doing well enough as a worm. 🙂

Why would that matter if it is doing well enough as a worm? If the driving
catalyst for change is random mutations; those mutations are going to
continue regardless if the worm doing well or not! So change is always
going to occur, the only thing after that would be as the worm gets changed
it has to deal with it until it cannot and dies, or it is no longer a worm, but
a jelly fish, or a tree, or a human, or some other lifeform. The worm would
always be in a constant state of change through mutations, there are no
rules that say mutations must leave the healthy as is so all life would be in
a state of flux would it not? I get that you and others here believe that only
good changes stay, but that is a stacked deck that seems completely
unrealistic to me, only a true believe could hold to such a notion. It is a stacked
deck that can never fail, yea good ones remain so there is always life, it is
not realistic, considering all the changes that would have had to happen!
Kelly