a swing and a rocket

[Helen]

Over and over again the claim is made and the challenge presented regarding how microevolution leads to macroevolution. Let's look at what is being talked about, and then let's look at why one cannot lead to the other.

What is referred to as 'macroevolution' is the type of evolution people argue about. The claim is made that, given enough time, enough fortuitous mutations, the right kind of natural selection, and a favorable environment, some kind of single-celled ancestor or ancestors gave rise to the multitude of life forms we see around us today. This is the type of evolution that claims that some reptiles evolved into birds, that man and ape had a common ancestor, and that we all came from fish even farther back.

Microevolution, on the other hand, is simply another word for variation. Variation produced our different breeds of dogs and cats and horses. We work constantly with variation in breeding and experience it constantly in our own families. Variation has to do with eye color, skin color, hair/fur color, markings, size -- that sort of thing.

The claim is made by those supporting evolution that by allowing variations to pile up on one another slowly, through time, a lizard can become an ape, or a bacteria became a bear.

To illustrate as simply as possible why this cannot happen, think of variations in any population as being a swing. There is a back-and-forth idea to variation. For instance, with size: there will be a minimum size for a type of animal and a maximum size. And all in between might be seen. But the size variation is hooked firmly to the swingset -- the genetics. Coloring is the same -- some extremes and all sorts of combinations in between.

But size stays size and color stays color.

Evolution, on the other hand, wants that swing to become disconnected from the swingset and act like a rocket -- taking off for parts unknown.

Can't happen.

First of all, variations have maximums and minimums. Secondly, they do not build on one another to produce something 'new.' Thirdly, when a cell splits, or buds (producing a new cell), there is a complicated checking mechanism which goes on where the chromosomes are concerned. Most mistakes (read 'mutations') simply can't get through. Of those that do, most do not appear to be expressed in the organism -- that means we don't see what effect they have. Of those which are expressed, it's about a thousand to one in favor of the mutation being damaging or lethal to the organism.

So get that beneficial mutation. One time. Then, for another one to show up, there are about a thousand negative mutations that have to be dealt with first.

That rocket can't take off.

Meanwhile the swing is still swinging -- back AND forth. No direction -- just back and forth, showing variations around a mean -- the chain on the swing is just so long.

And that's why variation, or 'microevolution' cannot be equated with or lead to basic body changes, or 'macroevolution.' Variations work independently of each other; they only go so far; and all the changes of color or size or hair or fur type simply are not going to cause a cold-blooded animal to change its entire metabolism to warm-blooded. They are not going to produce extra chambers for a heart, turn a lizard's breast bone upside down (for becoming a bird), produce new bone structure, cause joints to form -- the list is incredibly long.

But evolution says the rocket not only took off from the swingset, but that all these things happened SIMULTANEOUSLY!

God, on the other hand, states in Genesis 1 that He created life by type or kind. That just makes a whole lot more sense given what we have learned about genetics in the past hundred years!

Swings don't become rockets.

 

[Elena]

Evolution, on the other hand, wants that swing to become disconnected from the swingset and act like a rocket -- taking off for parts unknown.

Can't happen.

EF Sigh, another lengthy post that offers nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity.

 

[Helen]

It has nothing to do with incredulity, Elena. That is a cop-out answer from you so you don't have to deal with it.

Variations are NOT the source of profound morphological changes. Variations do not produce directional change, but literally swing back and forth. This is known. Even with lowly bacteria, this is known. They have hot spots where they mutate 'back and forth.'

Nor do variations build on one another. There is no incredulity there, just a statement of fact.

Try dealing with it.

 

[Meatros]

You make a few assumptions without providing any justifiable reasons why.

What are the limits of mutations, variations, etc, that you are proposing?

It seems as though Elena's objection is valid, this is all about your personal credulity-you can't imagine the time frames required, nor the massive amounts of change.

Variations are NOT the source of profound morphological changes. Variations do not produce directional change, but literally swing back and forth. This is known. Even with lowly bacteria, this is known. They have hot spots where they mutate 'back and forth.'

Nor do variations build on one another. There is no incredulity there, just a statement of fact.

You still haven't given any reason as to why a multitude of variations can not produce a change (what do you mean by "directional"?) You still haven't identified what prevents the 'swing' from going up and up. Why can't a mutation bust the artificial barrier you've set?

You state that variations can't build on one another? Why? Wouldn't this suggest that dog breeding is impossible?

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Helen:
First of all, variations have maximums and minimums.

okay, I would interpret this to mean that there is only so much allowable change within a variation.But what would prevent a chain of succeeding variations over a long period of time from creating something new or possibly even deleting something?

Originally posted by Helen:
Secondly, they do not build on one another to produce something 'new.'

You mean this hasn't been observed to happen. Doesn't an honest look at the fossil record prove otherwse?

Originally posted by Helen:
Thirdly, when a cell splits, or buds (producing a new cell), there is a complicated checking mechanism which goes on where the chromosomes are concerned. Most mistakes (read 'mutations') simply can't get through. Of those that do, most do not appear to be expressed in the organism -- that means we don't see what effect they have. Of those which are expressed, it's about a thousand to one in favor of the mutation being damaging or lethal to the organism.

So get that beneficial mutation. One time. Then, for another one to show up, there are about a thousand negative mutations that have to be dealt with first.

Hmm. You make it sound as if mutation is completely random rather than driven by adaptation. We witness evolution on a micro level by observing how creatures adapt to their environements, not by picking animals at random and waiting to see a physical change. Insects become immune to insecticides or change color to avoid a new predator etc. etc.

It seems to me like all you're doing is invoking the power of the declarative statement. I'm still not convinced.

 

[Meatros]

First of all, variations have maximums and minimums.

Upon reflection, I have to ask: Where are you getting your information Helen? Is it from a reputable source?

 

[Helen]

Meatros: One does not need to know WHY something is to know THAT it is. We deal with gravity daily -- depend on it, in fact -- and yet who knows WHAT it is? or even WHY it is?

I can give you some common sense responses on the limitations of mutations: they are limited to what does not produce disability or death in the organism. They are limited to what can be integrated into the system without disturbing it to too great a degree. They are limited by the ability of the cell/organism to react to the new directions. Why does this occur this way? Presumably because the cell/organism is so finely tuned in so many areas of its operation that it cannot tolerate much change and still function. One does not simply throw a new gear into a watch for improved working!

I also do not think you are understanding about variations. You mentioned dogs. That is variation. Lots of it.

And they are all still dogs.

That is what I am trying to get at. You can vary what you have til the cows come home, but you are not going to change the basic identity of it. It will always and forever simply be a variation. And if you want to propose that variations build on one another to produce new forms and functions in fish or birds or any of the kingdom animalia, please demonstrate how that can and has happened genetically. A world of people would be interested to know!

You mentioned that my 'barrier' is 'artificial.' No, I am not making up anything. I am commenting on what is. There is a difference.

My sources? Oh, I just make up everything as I go, don't you know? I don't do any reading, any research, any studying on my own. I just blabber away here in pure ignorance.

Travelsong: Variations are limited genetically. Mutations can delete. Sometimes these deletions are beneficial. However where the item came from in the first place so it could be deleted is not a matter of mutations. They can't do that. They DON'T do that.

Nor do variations pile up one on top of another to produce something entirely new in time. We don't see that, either! Nor is there a known mechanism for that.

The illustrated supposed lineage you copied on your post (from TalkOrigins?) is purely imaginary. There is nothing to suggest that one of these animals became another, regardless of time. There is no known way, genetically, for that to happen, and plenty of evidence against it. It is wishful thinking and I wish myself that evolutionists would at least admit to that and quit acting as thought these made-up lineages were fact.

It was made up to try to support the idea of evolution in the first place. Evolution was the presupposition that went into building that 'lineage.' The lineage shows only three things:

1. These animals all lived at some time in the past.
2. Evolution is presumed from the beginning.
3. Evolutionists have great and desperate imagination.

The fossil record, Travelsong, proves nothing about lineage! All that is interpretation! And sometimes, as with the horse data on TO, the interpretations are deceptive to a high degree.

ITM, mutations ARE random. That is the whole point of the thing. Adaptation can make use of one or two, but they do not inspire them. For instance, the famous study regarding the Bahamanian lizards: if they had not grown legs of various lengths to begin with, as part of a natural variation in the animal, there would have been nothing for natural selection to select. The same goes for mutations. The mutation arrives first. If it is helpful, great. If it isn't, goodbye organism! However, again, remember that even potentially helpful mutations are vastly outnumbered by others that must be dealt with before another helpful mutations might surface at all.

I believe it has been estimated that once the heritable mutation rate in a population reaches one per generation, that that population is in a state of 'error catastrophe' -- bound for extinction with no way out.

That means it takes MORE than one thousand generations for a second beneficial mutation to be added to the population -- and that is assuming the first did not get bred out accidently (for it would not have appeared in the whole population at once, but would have had to establish itself via breeding and generations. And one of the most common effects of sexual reproduction is the eliminations of mutations -- of any variety).

So if you can only add one positive mutation -- assuming that it is generalized in the population -- every two thousand generations, evolution is not going to cut it.

It's the data which does in evolution. It is only imagination and desperation which sustain it. Variation is not, again, the issue. The ability of variation to even eventually produce new forms and functions is.


You mentioned insects. Their ability to achieve population-wide pesticide resistance has to do with the fact that this variation was already present in some members, or they would not have survived to breed at all! And when the others died off, guess who was left to pass on that variation in greater numbers? This is adaptation of a population through 'natural selection' (in quotes because I don't know how natural insecticides are!). It is 'improvement' by deleting a massive section of the population (and thus any potential variability they might have carried in their genes) through poisoning and leaving only those who can survive the poison to remain and breed.

Bacteria are in a much better position regarding anti-bacterials, for they can mutate from generation to generation in their hot spots and thus produce given varieties even from small and limited populations. However animals are not in that position. Sexually reproducing animals achieve variety via sexual mixing of genetic material, thus producing new sets of interactions among certain genes (most traits, it is appearing, are the results of genetic interaction; it is not one trait per gene which was originally thought and taught). When an animal population loses a large segment of itself, that potential for variation is gone for good. The population is depleted, the gene pool reduced, and the possibility of becoming an endangered species enhanced -- for if they no longer have the potential for variation needed to cope with another change in environment, they are goners.

As far as insects changing color is concerned, that is part of their genetic heritage from the start. They either can or can't change to match background. Needing to will not cut it. The ability is either there or it ain't.

 

[Meatros]

Meatros: One does not need to know WHY something is to know THAT it is. We deal with gravity daily -- depend on it, in fact -- and yet who knows WHAT it is? or even WHY it is?

You are assume THAT it IS, you have given no evidence THAT it actually IS.

I can give you some common sense responses on the limitations of mutations: they are limited to what does not produce disability or death in the organism. They are limited to what can be integrated into the system without disturbing it to too great a degree. They are limited by the ability of the cell/organism to react to the new directions. Why does this occur this way? Presumably because the cell/organism is so finely tuned in so many areas of its operation that it cannot tolerate much change and still function. One does not simply throw a new gear into a watch for improved working!

Give me evidence of this. FOP, for example, is a mutation that occurs at conception (IIRC, when the egg gets fertilized). FOP fundamentally changes muscle into bone. That's a pretty fundamental change.
You need to give evidence of your assertion that microevolution can not, given time, become macroevolution. You haven't done so thus far.

That is what I am trying to get at. You can vary what you have til the cows come home, but you are not going to change the basic identity of it. It will always and forever simply be a variation. And if you want to propose that variations build on one another to produce new forms and functions in fish or birds or any of the kingdom animalia, please demonstrate how that can and has happened genetically. A world of people would be interested to know!

I disagree and you are insistent on not providing evidence that something can not change into another. Given enough time, enough mutations, why can't a fish slowly morph into a bird, a ape-like ancestor morph into a human? You try to divert the issue by saying "who knows why, it happens", but you haven't shown that it does in fact happen. Species, as I said, aren't a defined thing. That's why tigers and lions can interbreed (albeit with difficulty). Would you argue that is because they are from a "kind"? If so, what constitutes a "kind"?
You need to demonstrate that there are indeed barriers to prevent an accumulation of microevolution from changing the species, in addition to defining "species".Here's a useful webpage.

 

[The Galatian]

That means it takes MORE than one thousand generations for a second beneficial mutation to be added to the population -- and that is assuming the first did not get bred out accidently (for it would not have appeared in the whole population at once, but would have had to establish itself via breeding and generations. And one of the most common effects of sexual reproduction is the eliminations of mutations -- of any variety).

Let's see... assuming a human generation of 15 years, that means we could have only one favorable human mutation in 15,000 years. (keeping in mind that "favorable" means increasing the likelihood of leaving viable offspring)

So, do we have any evidence for more than one favorable human mutation in that time?

Yep. We do. Here's a half dozen. And those are just the ones we can document.

How long do you estimate humans have been on Earth, Helen?

 

[Helen]

Meatros, the burden of proof is never on the negative. You are the one asserting that variation can lead to rather massive morphological changes. Please give evidence of that. I know you can give interpretations of the fossil record and such, but so can I -- different interpretations, too! I want evidence, not assertions and not interpretations. It's time you put your money -- proverbially -- where your mouth is. You want to show me that variations become major changes? I am waiting.

You didn't really want to use FOP as an example of anything beneficial happening in that kind of a mutation, did you?

FOP is short for Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva. The disease is also known as Myositis Ossificans Progressiva; the name was modified in the 1970s to acknowledge the involvement of other soft, or fibrous, tissues in addition to muscle. FOP is a rare genetic disorder in which bone forms in muscles, tendons, ligaments, and other connective tissues. Bridges of extra bone form across the joints in characteristic patterns, progressively restricting movement. FOP is a disease in which the body produces not just too much bone, but an extra skeleton that immobilizes the joints of the body.
from http://www.ifopa.org/whatis/index.htm

If you want to convince anyone that that kind of mutation is going to help out with evolution, I think you have a LOT of talking to do!

In the meantime, please don't ask me to take stuff on Talk Origins seriously. I have seen too many of their idiocies to be willing to respect much of anything on there -- ESPECIALLY when it has to do with 'common descent.'

Galatian, Interesting word change there: from beneficial to favorable, along with the definition about simply leaving more progeny! Sorry, but that doesn't fly. We are talking about mutations needed to 'morph' (using Meatros' term) one sort of thing into another sort of thing. And the fact is that when a species is well-suited to its environment, changes will not increase survival of progeny, but decrease it.

We not only need a mutation which will DO something, but one that is selected for, as well, because of what it does, and then which will also work in concert with another mutation which will DO something and also be selected for ALONG WITH the first mutation -- in the meantime fighting off about 2000 other negative mutations and surviving sexual reproduction deletions.

Although your post indicated a link, I couldn't find one. But you said that six favorable mutations had been documented. If sickle cell is one, scratch it. It is only beneficial in particular circumstances and lethal when inherited from both the mother and the father.

In the meantime, here's that old, somewhat longer, list of a FEW of the DOCUMENTED negative mutations we know of which have been detrimental to the human race:

=============

on p. 51 of the October 1999 issue of National Geographic, there is the following list of problems associated with various mutations in human chromosomes.

Chromosome 1
-- malignant melanoma
-- prostate cancer
-- deafness

Chromosome 2
-- congenital hypothyroidism
-- colorectal cancer

Chromosome 3
-- susceptibility to HIV infection
-- small-cell lung cancer
-- dementia

Chromosome 4
-- Huntington's Disease
-- polycystic kidney disease

Chromosome 5
-- spinal muscular atrophy
-- endometrial carcinoma

Chromosome 6
-- hemochronatosis
-- dyslexia
-- schizophrenia
-- myoclonus epilepsy
-- estrogen resistance

Chromosome 7
-- Growth hormone deficient dwarfism
-- pregnancy-induced hypertension
-- cystic fibrosis
-- severe obesity

Chromosome 8
-- hemolytic anemia
-- Burkitt's lymphoma

Chromosome 9
-- dilated cardiomyopathy
-- fructose intolerance

Chromosome 10
-- congenital cataracts
-- late onset cockayne syndrome

Chromosome 11
-- sickle cell anemia
-- albinism

Chromosome 12
-- inflammatory bowel disease
-- rickets

Chromosome 13
-- breast cancer, early onset
-- retinoblastoma
-- pancreatic cancer

Chromosome 14
-- leukemia/ T-cell lymphoma
-- goiter

Chromosome 15
-- Marfan's syndrome
-- juvenile epilepsy

Chromosome 16
-- polycystic kidney disease
-- familial gastric cancer
-- Tuberous sclerosis-2

Chromosome 17 (done in detail as an example)

RP13 -- retinitis pigmentosa
CTAA2 -- cataract
SLC2A4 -- diabetes susceptibility
TP53 -- cancer
MYO15 -- deafness
PMP22 -- Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy
COL1A1 -- osteogenesis imperfecta; osteoporosis
SLC6A4 -- anxiety-related personality traits
BLMH -- Alzheimer's disease susceptibility
NF1 -- neurofibromatosis
RARA -- leukemia
MAPT -- dementia
SGCA -- muscular dystrophy
BRCA1 -- breast cancer; ovarian cancer
PRKCA -- pituitary tumor
MPO -- yeast infection susceptibility
GH1 -- growth hormone deficiency
DCP1 -- myocardian infarction susceptibility
SSTR2 -- small-cell lung cancer

Chromosome 18
-- diabetes mellitus
-- familial carpal tunnel syndrome

Chromosome 19
-- myotonic dystrophy
-- malignant hyperthermia

Chromosome 20
-- isolated growth hormone deficiency
-- fatal familial insomnia
-- Creutzfeldt-Jakob's disease

Chromosome 21
-- autoimmune polyglandular disease
-- amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Chromosome 22
-- Ewing's sarcome
-- giant-cell fibroblastoma

X Chromosome
-- colorblindness
-- mental retardation
-- gout
-- hemophilia
-- male pseudohermaphroditism

Y Chromosome
-- gonadal dysgenesis

Mitochondrial DNA
-- Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy
-- diabetes and deafness
-- myopathy and cardiomyopathy
-- dystonia

====================

How long has the human race been around, you ask? About 8000 years...

 

[Meatros]

Meatros, the burden of proof is never on the negative. You are the one asserting that variation can lead to rather massive morphological changes. Please give evidence of that. I know you can give interpretations of the fossil record and such, but so can I -- different interpretations, too! I want evidence, not assertions and not interpretations. It's time you put your money -- proverbially -- where your mouth is. You want to show me that variations become major changes? I am waiting.

How do you explain the fact that we share genes with a vast majority of creatures on this planet? How do you explain the massive amounts of transitional fossils? How do you explain

 

[A_Christian]

Point one---Waste not want not.

Point two---There are none. Your dreaming again.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Meatros:
How do you explain the fact that we share genes with a vast majority of creatures on this planet? How do you explain the massive amounts of transitional fossils? How do you explain

Same genes make the same proteins which is one of the building blocks of life as we know it. Same as me asking you, "Please explain why bridges and houses and boardwalks are all made of wood." That's the material people use for them. God used the material of his choice for living things.

Transitional fossils, sir, are in the eye of the beholder. They are not anything but interpretation, as I previously stated.

Now, please show me genetically how variation can become gross morphological change in the way of evolution. This is what you claim can happen. I am waiting to see evidence. Not interpretation, and not questions back at me, but evidence for what you say is fact.

 

[Meatros]

Whups, my "edit message" field expired:

Meatros, the burden of proof is never on the negative. You are the one asserting that variation can lead to rather massive morphological changes. Please give evidence of that. I know you can give interpretations of the fossil record and such, but so can I -- different interpretations, too! I want evidence, not assertions and not interpretations. It's time you put your money -- proverbially -- where your mouth is. You want to show me that variations become major changes? I am waiting.

I'm not asserting that a *single* variation can lead to a massive change! Thousands (probably millions) do!
How do you explain the fact that we share genes with a vast majority of creatures on this planet? How do you explain the massive amounts of transitional fossils? How do you explain observed incidents of speciation?. Do you handwave away TalkOrigin's 29 evidences as "propaganda"? Check out this site. Here's an abstract about Sympatric speciation through intraspecific social parasitism (It might be a bit much to read though). Taken from this abstract:

A phylogenetic analysis unambiguously confirms the conclusion that chimpanzees were our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates and the relative divergence of the Homo-Pan and that of (Homo-Pan)-Gorilla are 4.93 million years and 7.26 million years, respectively.

You mention the burden of proof and proving a negative. That doesn't fly, unless you are admitting that there is *no* mechanism to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution.

Do you admit this?

You are the one sticking to your ill defined definition of what constitutes a species.

You didn't really want to use FOP as an example of anything beneficial happening in that kind of a mutation, did you?

Beneficial? No, why would you put those words in my mouth? How on earth could you even remotely think that FOP was beneficial? Here, read up about mutations.

My point was to show that genes are capable of a wide variety of things, including changing entirely. I mentioned nothing of beneficial, although certainly you would have to accept that out of the billions of variations that occur, some would have to be beneficial, wouldn't they?

In the meantime, please don't ask me to take stuff on Talk Origins seriously. I have seen too many of their idiocies to be willing to respect much of anything on there -- ESPECIALLY when it has to do with 'common descent.'

Did you ever try reading Talk Origins? It might clear up a lot of the misconceptions you hold.

You could also read this, from the national academies of science:

Scientists also have gained an understanding of the processes by which new species originate. A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species. The split of one species into two often starts because a group of individuals becomes geographically separated from the rest. This is particularly apparent in distant remote islands, such as the Galápagos and the Hawaiian archipelago, whose great distance from the Americas and Asia means that arriving colonizers will have little or no opportunity to mate with individuals remaining on those continents. Mountains, rivers, lakes, and other natural barriers also account for geographic separation between populations that once belonged to the same species.

Once isolated, geographically separated groups of individuals become genetically differentiated as a consequence of mutation and other processes, including natural selection. The origin of a species is often a gradual process, so that at first the reproductive isolation between separated groups of organisms is only partial, but it eventually becomes complete. Scientists pay special attention to these intermediate situations, because they help to reconstruct the details of the process and to identify particular genes or sets of genes that account for the reproductive isolation between species.

PLUS

The code used to translate nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is essentially the same in all organisms. Moreover, proteins in all organisms are invariably composed of the same set of 20 amino acids. This unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent of the most diverse organisms.

In 1959, scientists at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom determined the three-dimensional structures of two proteins that are found in almost every multicelled animal: hemoglobin and myoglobin. Hemoglobin is the protein that carries oxygen in the blood. Myoglobin receives oxygen from hemoglobin and stores it in the tissues until needed. These were the first three-dimensional protein structures to be solved, and they yielded some key insights. Myoglobin has a single chain of 153 amino acids wrapped around a group of iron and other atoms (called "heme") to which oxygen binds. Hemoglobin, in contrast, is made of up four chains: two identical chains consisting of 141 amino acids, and two other identical chains consisting of 146 amino acids. However, each chain has a heme exactly like that of myoglobin, and each of the four chains in the hemoglobin molecule is folded exactly like myoglobin. It was immediately obvious in 1959 that the two molecules are very closely related.

During the next two decades, myoglobin and hemoglobin sequences were determined for dozens of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, and molluscs. All of these sequences were so obviously related that they could be compared with confidence with the three-dimensional structures of two selected standards--whale myoglobin and horse hemoglobin. Even more significantly, the differences between sequences from different organisms could be used to construct a family tree of hemoglobin and myoglobin variation among organisms. This tree agreed completely with observations derived from paleontology and anatomy about the common descent of the corresponding organisms.

Plus

Special creationists argue that "no one has seen evolution occur." This misses the point about how science tests hypotheses. We don't see Earth going around the sun or the atoms that make up matter. We "see" their consequences. Scientists infer that atoms exist and Earth revolves because they have tested predictions derived from these concepts by extensive observation and experimentation.

Furthermore, on a minor scale, we "experience" evolution occurring every day. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are both products of evolutionary forces. Indeed, the rapidity with which organisms with short generation times, such as bacteria and viruses, can evolve under the influence of their environments is of great medical significance. Many laboratory experiments have shown that, because of mutation and natural selection, such microorganisms can change in specific ways from those of immediately preceding generations.

On a larger scale, the evolution of mosquitoes resistant to insecticides is another example of the tenacity and adaptability of organisms under environmental stress. Similarly, malaria parasites have become resistant to the drugs that were used extensively to combat them for many years. As a consequence, malaria is on the increase, with more than 300 million clinical cases of malaria occurring every year.

Here's some more links on speciation. If you wish, here are ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC journals on human evolution.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
Point one---Waste not want not.

Point two---There are none. Your dreaming again.

A_Christian, I have to ask, how old are you?

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Helen:
[QB]Same genes make the same proteins which is one of the building blocks of life as we know it. Same as me asking you, "Please explain why bridges and houses and boardwalks are all made of wood." That's the material people use for them. God used the material of his choice for living things.

You really don't understand genes at all, do you?

Originally posted by Helen:
[QB]Transitional fossils, sir, are in the eye of the beholder. They are not anything but interpretation, as I previously stated.

Interpetations, eh? The DNA similarities don't bother you a bit?

Originally posted by Helen:
[QB]Now, please show me genetically how variation can become gross morphological change in the way of evolution. This is what you claim can happen. I am waiting to see evidence. Not interpretation, and not questions back at me, but evidence for what you say is fact.

Do not twist my words. Variations on top of variations (Not the singular, you've tried to slip by) form different species. How could they not? Seriously, how could enough variations, over enough time *not* form a new species?
I'm baffled by your denial. There is no mechanism for preventing it from happening, so how could it not?

 

[The Galatian]

(Barbarian notes numerous beneficial mutations)

Galatian, Interesting word change there: from beneficial to favorable,

Oh, sorry. Here you go, six "beneficial" ones:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

So we have a half-dozen documented benificial mutations, which, if you are right about 1000 generations, means that it must have taken, um, 15,000 X 6 = 90,000 years. But those are not the only ones, and most of them we haven't been lucky enough to document. So how long did you say humans have been on Earth?

How long has the human race been around, you ask? About 8000 years...

Nope. One of those claims has to be false. Can't both be true.

We not only need a mutation which will DO something, but one that is selected for, as well, because of what it does, and then which will also work in concert with another mutation which will DO something and also be selected for ALONG WITH the first mutation -- in the meantime fighting off about 2000 other negative mutations and surviving sexual reproduction deletions.

That can happen even in microevolutionary changes, Helen. Barry Hall observed just that in the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme in bacteria.

It's also been observed in sequential mutations in insects to pesticide resistance.

Although your post indicated a link, I couldn't find one. But you said that six favorable mutations had been documented. If sickle cell is one, scratch it.

It wasn't one listed, but yes, that is also a beneficial mutation, since it increases the likelihood of leaving viable offspring. People in malaria areas who have one sickle cell gene are more fit than those with two normal hemoglobing genes.

It is only beneficial in particular circumstances and lethal when inherited from both the mother and the father.

Are you saying that "fitness only counts in terms of environment"? You're right. And not surprisingly, when malaria is controlled,we see the frequency of the gene decline.

(lists unfavorable mutations)

That's how it works. Most mutations don't do much of anything. A few are harmful. A very few are useful and actually make the organism more fit. I've shown you six of them, but there are many more, most of which we haven't documented.

But the bottom line is that your notion of how long it takes to get a beneficial mutation into the population is logically contradicted by the notion of people being around only 8,000 years. It would, just for the few I documented, take over ten times that long, if your theory is right.

 

[Helen]

Meatros, I have to say that some of your questions and comments have shown so little knowledge that I have wondered how old YOU are! So unless you want to divulge your age, let Christian alone. I am 55, by the way.

Now, about your post.

1. Speciation is NOT being argued! That has been said so many times I wonder what your memory retention time is!

2. I never argued anything about a single mutation leading to morphological changes. Please read my material again. You are knocking down a straw man. While that can be fun, it has nothing to do with this discussion.

3. The 'evidences' on TO have been more than adequately refuted here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

4. You assert variations built on top of each other through time can lead to gross morphological changes. Please give some kind of evidence for this which is hard science -- as in genetics -- and not someone's interpretation of the fossil record. Please provide evidence for what you assert happened.

5. You said I had an ill-defined idea of species. Would you please tell me what you think my definition of a species is? I know what I think and I know what I have written on this forum, and I am betting you are pretty clueless as to what I have said there.

6. You wrote, "My point was to show that genes are capable of a wide variety of things, including changing entirely. I mentioned nothing of beneficial, although certainly you would have to accept that out of the billions of variations that occur, some would have to be beneficial, wouldn't they?"

And I have the feeling you are thinking of mutations as being variations. They are not. They are two different things. Mutations can provide some variations -- often sterile -- but all variations are most certainly not mutations. You need to make your points more precise. IN the meantime, most variations are neither harmful nor beneficial. Most mutations which are expressed are harmful and many are lethal. There is no rule that once in awhile a mutation must be beneficial. So the answer to what I think you are asking there is 'no.'

7. I have read extensively on TO in the past. I will not do so again. I am disgusted by much of the misinformation I see there as well as the attitude. In the meantime, I subscribe to Nature as well as a number of other science magazines both on and off the web. I am not totally ignorant.

8. I have an elementary understanding of genes. If you think that because I didn't mention the amino acids I don't know what I am talking about, I'm sorry to disappoint you. You either got the point of what I was saying or you didn't. It looks like you didn't.

9. It is not the DNA similarities which are turning out the be the main thing, if you have been keeping up with the recent articles in genetics -- it is the 'junk' in between which is starting to grab attention. Timing mechanisms and regulators are showing up as being quite different between man and ape/chimp. It's a different set of directions for the same materials. Or, another way of putting it is that the early claims of similarity were based on very inadequate knowledge. Our knowledge, by the way, is still something less than adequate for the claims that continue being made!

Galatian: oh, it's much worse for me than you thought! Remember that Flood you say didn't happen? The one in Genesis 7? Well there was a pretty severe bottleneck for the human race there. Only 8 survived...

And they were exposed to the first radioactive material on the surface of the earth when the fountains exploded upward, bringing pulverized material with them. This means there was a rash of deleterious mutations possible with those first generations after the Flood -- and that is something we may be seeing reflected in the sudden drop in life expectancies listed. Of course, I know you consider all that allegory, but you will have to realize that we are coming at this thing from two entirely different points of view: I'm accepting what the Bible says about the age of the earth, the creation and condition of man, the reality of the Flood, and the ages of the ancients.

You have your own spin to all of that. So just recognize that where you see a problem in what I am saying, I see a pretty big one in what you are saying, too. I see a source for a number of deleterious mutations immediately after the Flood, and we have done ourselves no good in the way we live today in terms of slowing down the rate of mutations we are seeing. But again, you may remember me saying a long time ago, that I have yet to hear of a new mommy and daddy who, when being told their newborn has a mutation, say excitedly, "Wow! is it a good one?"

People know.

Even if the scientists don't. But I think they really do....

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
But evolution says the rocket not only took off from the swingset, but that all these things happened SIMULTANEOUSLY!

No. A long time. A very long time. No one claims all the changes happen simulataneously.

The fossil record has shown transitional lineages where a number of characteristics that change slowly and in concert. Sometimes change is more rapid. Sometimes the fossil record misses some of the transitional or only catches some of the side branches. But all in all, we have a record of a number of transitions.

It has nothing to do with incredulity, Elena. That is a cop-out answer from you so you don't have to deal with it...Variations are NOT the source of profound morphological changes...Nor do variations build on one another. There is no incredulity there, just a statement of fact. Try dealing with it.

But much of what you are saying sounds a lot like incredulity and assertion without supporting information. You make plenty of assertions that evolution cannot account for life as we know it, but where is the evidence against it.

I also do not think you are understanding about variations. You mentioned dogs. That is variation. Lots of it. And they are all still dogs.

You mentioned dogs. Unclean animals. So the original doggy "kind" would have had exactly two members after the ark. I assume by dog "kind" you mean canines (since we do not have that list of "kinds" yet). So from these two individuals, we have the diversity of traits not only seen in the various dog breeds of the world, but also different species of wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackels, and other canines. And this happened by just varying about the mean of these two animals. And without adding new traits and variations to the gene pool (beneficial mutations). Through a bottleneck of two individuals. In a few hundred years. I'm incredulous.

So what is that barrier that prevents us from backing up another step and getting canines, felines, bears, seals, hyenas and such from a common carnivore ancestor? Though millions of years instead of hundreds (or less).

My sources? Oh, I just make up everything as I go, don't you know? I don't do any reading, any research, any studying on my own. I just blabber away here in pure ignorance.

Helen, we know you are well read. We do want the sources for the assertion that there is a genetic barrier to evolution. Well, other than the hyper-evolution from "kinds" to modern species immediately after the ark.

The illustrated supposed lineage you copied on your post (from TalkOrigins?) is purely imaginary. There is nothing to suggest that one of these animals became another, regardless of time. There is no known way, genetically, for that to happen, and plenty of evidence against it. It is wishful thinking and I wish myself that evolutionists would at least admit to that and quit acting as thought these made-up lineages were fact.

Not from Talk.Origins.

Bold assertion. If you do not like whale evolution series maybe you can break it apart into "kinds" for us, show us the barriers between these "kinds," and show where the scientists went wrong in their series. To assert that these are "made-up", not just incorrect, is a pretty strong statement and should be backed up with evidence that shows that this cannot happen.

Meatros, the burden of proof is never on the negative. You are the one asserting that variation can lead to rather massive morphological changes. Please give evidence of that. I know you can give interpretations of the fossil record and such, but so can I -- different interpretations, too!

You make a number of assertions and then appeal that you cannot prove a negative when asked for proof! You say that there are genetic barriers. Your talking about variations and mutations has been just that. Show the proof. You says barriers exist. Present it. That is not proving a negative, that is supporting an assertion. Show how the transitional interpretations are wrong and what explanation does a better job of fitting the data. You are making the claim, you show the evidence. What is wrong with the whale sequence? What is wrong with the reptiles=>mammals sequence? If you cannot explain the data better quit asserting that the interpretations are wrong.

Same genes make the same proteins which is one of the building blocks of life as we know it. Same as me asking you, "Please explain why bridges and houses and boardwalks are all made of wood." That's the material people use for them. God used the material of his choice for living things.

So why do we share some mutations EXACTLY with other apes? They serve no common design purpose. Actually, no purpose at all. But they are there.

Transitional fossils, sir, are in the eye of the beholder. They are not anything but interpretation, as I previously stated.

Then show the better interpretation.

Now, please show me genetically how variation can become gross morphological change in the way of evolution. This is what you claim can happen. I am waiting to see evidence.

Here:

"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrent the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
Futuyma, D.J. in EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

There's the how. I think there have been posts else where on this board in the last few weeks about new "irreducibly complex" pathways evolving to show observational evidence in the lab. The fossil record shows large scale, long term changes. Unless you can show otherwise.

back to Helen:
But again, you may remember me saying a long time ago, that I have yet to hear of a new mommy and daddy who, when being told their newborn has a mutation, say excitedly, "Wow! is it a good one?"

Strawman. I'm sure the doctor would notice that the baby had a mutation that might make it slightly smarter, or slightly stronger or so on. Or let's use a real example. In the transition from apes to humans we got more sweat glands and less hair to interfere with evaporation. I'm sure the doctor would notice that the baby was going to grow up to have tiny fraction less body hair than its parents.

No, the parents worry if a mutation is pointed out because the obvious things likely will be bad.

 

[The Galatian]

oh, it's much worse for me than you thought! Remember that Flood you say didn't happen? The one in Genesis 7?

The allegory? Yep.

Well there was a pretty severe bottleneck for the human race there. Only 8 survived...

And yet we have six documented beneficial mutations, which, if your theory is correct, would have taken 90,000 years to complete. Something is wrong.

And they were exposed to the first radioactive material on the surface of the earth when the fountains exploded upward, bringing pulverized material with them.

Wrong. C14 was always on the surface, and as at least one isotope of Aluminum (which is almost entirely at the surface because it sorts out, being lighter than the mantle or core) has a half-life of 710,000 thousand years.

I'm accepting what the Bible says about the age of the earth, the creation and condition of man, the reality of the Flood, and the ages of the ancients.[/qquote]

You mean that you accept your particular interpretation of it.

You have your own spin to all of that.

And you have yours.

So just recognize that where you see a problem in what I am saying, I see a pretty big one in what you are saying, too.

Mine's based on evidence, yours is based on your particular take on Scripture.

But again, you may remember me saying a long time ago, that I have yet to hear of a new mommy and daddy who, when being told their newborn has a mutation, say excitedly, "Wow! is it a good one?"

Probably so. Most beneficial ones are incremental or, like resistance to artheriosclerosis, not immediately obvious.

People know. Even if the scientists don't. But I think they really do....

You know how dumb those scientists are. Or possibly, they're just dishonest, and have managed to perfectly hide it for over 150 years.

Or maybe, they actually know something about science...