PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 25 26 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
Lester, it seems that the evolutionists here have made up their minds.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Indeed.

Evolution is taught and accepted in schools and now I find there is alot of doubt in the theory.
Not from people who matter. Sorry, it's just the truth.

ANTI-EVOLUTIONIST has point out there is much speculation in the words they used because the case is obviously not sealed and shut.
About the fact of Evolution, yeah, it is. Sealed and shut. I don't think you'll any important scientists in a relevant area who doubt it.

God is not allowing himself to be totally revealed because it is faith that is the key.
Yeah. It's like he wouldn't allow himself to even EXIST, so that your faith gets stronger. xD

Or even more! He could plant evidence for Evolution!
Well, the smarter people will perish, but hey! Who said that Heavens were for the smart?

Otherwise he would have created robots instead of free willed humans.
You seem to think that ignorance is the key to free will.

The fish to mammals story is highly doubtful in my view, I need more convincing evidence.
You don't matter. And you don't want to see the evidence.

You don't even respond when i refute you.

You're arrogant and dishonest. Not as much as Lester though.

You still 100% sure of evolution, on your family's life?
If you say 100% sure, you would answer YES.
I don't understand the bet.

What do i get if i win?

If you show me 5 bucks, it's on!


(Edited by wisp 1/2/2010 at 12:07 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:07 AM on January 2, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anti-evolutionist
I have an objection to reptile-bird evolution if your interested.
I am. Start a thread.
specificity the scales to feathers part of it.
So you basically start with a strawman, right?

Aren't you one bit ashamed?

and also nothing-single celled organisms XD
Can you clarify?

Oh, you mean abiogenesis?? That thing which isn't a part of the Theory of Evolution?

Sweet...

but does this mean the fish with 'legs' part of the debate is over? what was the conclusion?
This debate isn't representative of a scientific debate.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:00 AM on January 2, 2010 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

to wisp.
sorry to do this, but I don't have enough time to go into detail.
so I will just address key points of your post and hope you can understand what I am talking about

when you said "I don't recall having said anything like that" you where referring to my use of "quotation marks". as you can see in this paragraph alone, when I quote you I use colour. (this can be a problem when I quote others, but then I am more careful to say John Smith said " ... ")

men are usually taller than women. but not always. thus making your statement a generalisation, but acceptable.
where as if only some men where usually taller than woman, then I would have a problem with your statement. (this is a metaphor in case you where wondering)

you said "You care about words. We care about facts." but then later said "*should HAVE"
I can not help but be amused by the irony.

when you said no function you literally meant NO function! so the legs have no function. not even under water...
my answer to your question "why did God create fish with NON-FUNCTIONAL legs?" would be: he wouldn't.
when a tadpole grows into a frog it no longer needs a tail, and loses it. perhaps (and this is total speculation) the small, totally useless, front legs of the creature are the remnants of a more practically sized apendage from the creatures childhood.

I do not see it as being a hyperbolic statement to say that I am
more open-minded than the average creationist. but my ego may have influence here :P

What Do You Mean 'Excellent! A straightforward answer!'? when have I given anything else (on second thought... don't answer that)

the hind legs; we agree they could be (and probably where) used to propel the creature along the seabed.
and (I think) we agree that legs are better than fins for bottom dwellers

the front legs; I totally agree that they look like they can do nothing. but as stated in this post, there is the possibility that they once did something.
aside from that... the fact they look useless doesn't mean they are the result of devolution (or partial evolution)

yes. "totally outrageous" was a hyperbolic statement
but at least it was a hyperbolic statement directed at a single quote, and not at the opposition in general (which for me would be evolutionists)
this is what is called taking the moral high ground.

being a creationist, I am definitely b). maybe c) depending on the strictness of your definition

You claimed that WE claimed something about them, and i'm hoping you'll quote it or take it back.
honestly I am still a little confused myself about who is claimimg what with HDLSS's. that is why I am claiming MY views and am opposing all who post anything that is dissimilar.
by the end, some parts I admit defeat, other parts I get the last word (usually meaning others agree (or at least agree to disagree)). resulting in some form of understanding between everyone.

the section you talk about "resemblance", I will not go into that now anymore than to say that I see the phylogenetic tree of life as being a good example of the facts being twisted to fit the model.

as for testing for "highness". the manner in which this word was used (when it was used by me) means that testing for efficiency and effectiveness would suffice.

and I think I read you say something about English not being your first language? interesting...
your doing quite a good job in that case

PS: this is likely to be my last post for another few weeks. so you may all go back to your bickering and squabbling if you like ^_^


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 09:05 AM on January 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:24 PM on January 1, 2010 :
Oh, hey Derwood. long time to see
I know we have had our differences in the past. but I am pleased to inform you that since the I have ... I guess I could say I've grown up.


Well. let's hope so.


speaking about the past, I am very surprised to find you STILL harping on about that opening post of mine.


Why wouldn't I?  It is a prime example of how creationists tend to operate.  And what is more - after I provided a reasoned response, you decided to announce that you didn't want to post in 'your' thread any more.  Klassic Kreationist Komedy!


I think the best response I can give to your insistant view point would be this quote. and it just happens to be the first post I ever directed at you (funny about that)
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 7:14 PM on September 14, 2009 :
To Derwood
(...)
oh, and if you are going to now try and prove me wrong with facts and reasoning, don't bother about my interpretation of "the evolutionists explanation". that was not meant to be taken seriously. it was meant as a ploy to entice evolutionists to give their side of the story
and for Apoapsis and orion it worked
I hope this time you will listen.


Unfortunately for you, the originnal thread still exists, and one can see what your actual first response to me was:

"To Derwood
I would appreciate it if you did not post on this thread again."





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:41 AM on January 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:09 PM on January 1, 2010 :
[b]
Ok - well I KNOW without a shred of doubt that evolution is 100% absolutely true.


Satisfied?



Note the bolded part.

How do you know this?  How many mutations would it take, and how did you figure this out?



So you are 100% sure that evolution is true? There is   quite a nbr of creationist biologists, chemists, geologists, biochemists,Microbiologists who disagree with evolution and you can be so sure? wow,!


Yes, because those creationists put their religfion first, reality second. I have documented how these people - these 'creation scientists' - operate, so I know they cannot face the facts.

Besides, I was just taking cues from you - you people find the tentative language of science to be a sign of weakness, while you see platitudes and pontifications of certainty as espoused by your handlers to be comforting.  So, I thought I'd give it a spin.

So how do I know that it took countless mutations?
In fairness, I assumed this since the difference between a fish and a man seems "countless".

Lots of things "seem" certain ways, yet they are not that way.  It is interesting to see how the creationist will take something that 'seems' - to them - to be a certain as the TRUTH.


If it tooks millions of years I would assume alot of mutations
I have also read that the rate of mutation would not be high enough to exact evolution from fish to man due to the number of beneficial mutation ratio/bad mutation given the age of the earth and number of generations. What do you think?

I thinnk that the people who claim such things do not understand either population genetics nor the fact that mutations can have large scale effects.

here's a quote:

The calculation is done in the following way: Let us consider two randomly chosen human beings.   Assuming all human beings initially have identical mitochondrial DNA,  after 33 generations, two such random human families will probably differ by two mutations, since there will be two separate lines of inheritance and probably one mutation along each line. After 66 generations, two randomly chosen humans will differ by about four mutations. After 100 generations, they will differ by about six mutations. After 300 generations, they will differ by about 18 mutations, which is about the observed value.

These experiments are quite concerning to evolutionists who previously calculated that the “mitochondrial eve” (who’s mitochondria is thought to be the ancestor mitochondria to all living humans) lived about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa.1  The new calculations, based on the above experiments, would make her a relatively young ~6,500 years old.  Now, the previous notion that modern humans are up to 10,000 generations old has to be reevaluated or at least the mtDNA basis for that assumption has to be reevaluated - and it has been.2  


1. David Plaisted is a computer scientist and a creationist whose various essays are so riddled with the sorts of errors that a person making pontifications outside of their actual area of expertise would make that I am unsure why anyone takes him seriously.  I will say that he, unlike the typical creation 'scientist', does actually try to correct mistakes in his essays, but he often seems to feel that if such corrections gut his pro-creation claims, he is very reluctant to make them.  I know, I have contacted him in the past.

2.  What your quote has to do with millions of mutations required for mammal from fish evolution is a mystery, since mintochondria have virtually nothing to do with phenotype and in fact have theior own genomes seperate from that in the nucleus.

In otrher words, your quote is a red herring, that is what I think of it.


What would you say if I told you about a condition that causes a loss of interphalangeal joints, a disproportionate shortenting of limb length, joint and facial anomalies, etc.?  Would you think that it must take many many mutations for that to really happen?


What if I told you all those changes could be accomplished with a single nucleotide mutation?



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:54 AM on January 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:47 PM on January 1, 2010 :
So who's correct?

My money is on the folks who do not misrepresent and fabricate claims to protect their religious beliefs.

You still 100% sure of evolution, on your family's life?
If you say 100% sure, you would answer YES.

100% sure.

I am 100% certain that one particular tribal deity did NOT will the universe into existence no more than 10,000 years ago to include blowing on dirt and having a fully formed adult human man pop out.

Absolutely.


In all seriousness, I am not 100% certain that the current theory of evolution is 100% correct.  In fact, I am 100% certain that it is not.  Not that the entire theory will be tossed out as falsified, but because of the nature of science, and the fact that new evidence is being disvovered all the time, certain details as to mechanisms and timing of events and such will almost certainly be modified as data warrants.

This is in stark contrast to creation 'science', which simply waits for actual scientists to discover something, then either sits on the sidleines and nitpicks or claims to have 'predicted' it all along, never altering their core 'beliefs' because they have started with their conclusions (anti-science) and will never change their position.





(Edited by derwood 1/2/2010 at 12:02 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:01 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 10:59 PM on January 1, 2010 :
I have an objection to reptile-bird evolution if your interested.
specificity the scales to feathers part of it.


Except that the evidence indicates

1.  that there were dinosaurs with feathers and

2. birds still have scales


So, what is your objection exactly?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:06 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 09:46 AM on December 20, 2009 :
Quote from Demon38 at 8:30 PM on December 19, 2009 :
So for a fish that lives in water, would not a mutation that allows it to live in water more efficiently be beneficial rather then one that takes it away from water?

You have to look at the environment the fish is in.  At the time fish started to evovle lungs, the earth was getting warmer so the lakes and streams they were living in were getting smaller and warmer, and the warmer water gets the less oxygen it can hold.  Evolving lungs allowed them to better survive in the smaller, warmer, less oxygenated lakes, streams and rivers.  They could now, in addition to their gills, gulp oxygen directly from the air.  We see lungfish that do this today.  So these mutations allowed the fish to live in the water more efficiently but when some of these environments changed even more, some of these fish could now live longer on land also.  It was initially beneficial to the fish.


That sounds like alot of mutations to have to occur to effect that. And these were all mistakes?




How many does it sound like?

And is that number some sort of problem?

And if so, how so?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:11 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:12 PM on December 31, 2009 :
This would mean it's organs would undergo metamorphic changes, it's limbs, nervous system, blood type etc. It's a hard pill to swallow for me.
You're exaggerating. From the creature that already had lungs, limbs, elbows, wrists and fingers (without leaving the water yet) the changes weren't as dramatic as you're depicting them.

To gain fur, warm bloodedness, efficient air breathing capability, skin to no longer need moisture, stronger limbs, different jaw structure, ear bone structure, ability to give live birth, diaphram, etc,etc  I do not believe is exaggerating. How many mutations had to fall into place?


How many mutations do you think it took to produce this phenotype in one generation:




(Edited by derwood 1/2/2010 at 12:30 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:20 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 09:05 AM on January 2, 2010 :
... I will not go into that now anymore than to say that I see the phylogenetic tree of life as being a good example of the facts being twisted to fit the model.


I can't wait until you go into more detail on this.

You WILL, won't you?  Because, you see, producing phylogenetic trees is part of what I did in my graduate research.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:27 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 12:20 PM on January 2, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 5:12 PM on December 31, 2009 :
This would mean it's organs would undergo metamorphic changes, it's limbs, nervous system, blood type etc. It's a hard pill to swallow for me.
You're exaggerating. From the creature that already had lungs, limbs, elbows, wrists and fingers (without leaving the water yet) the changes weren't as dramatic as you're depicting them.

To gain fur, warm bloodedness, efficient air breathing capability, skin to no longer need moisture, stronger limbs, different jaw structure, ear bone structure, ability to give live birth, diaphram, etc,etc  I do not believe is exaggerating. How many mutations had to fall into place?


How many mutations do you think it took to produce this phenotype in one generation:




(Edited by derwood 1/2/2010 at 12:30 PM).



That was an unbeneficial mutation. What is the rate of good ones to bad ones? Look at all the diseases we have today due to bad mutations. Show me some good one like the example you just pointed out.




-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 2:26 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 12:11 PM on January 2, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 09:46 AM on December 20, 2009 :
Quote from Demon38 at 8:30 PM on December 19, 2009 :
So for a fish that lives in water, would not a mutation that allows it to live in water more efficiently be beneficial rather then one that takes it away from water?

You have to look at the environment the fish is in.  At the time fish started to evolve lungs, the earth was getting warmer so the lakes and streams they were living in were getting smaller and warmer, and the warmer water gets the less oxygen it can hold.  Evolving lungs allowed them to better survive in the smaller, warmer, less oxygenated lakes, streams and rivers.  They could now, in addition to their gills, gulp oxygen directly from the air.  We see lungfish that do this today.  So these mutations allowed the fish to live in the water more efficiently but when some of these environments changed even more, some of these fish could now live longer on land also.  It was initially beneficial to the fish.


That sounds like alot of mutations to have to occur to effect that. And these were all mistakes?




How many does it sound like?

And is that number some sort of problem?

And if so, how so?


Could it be that you have relatives who showed you their photo albums of a bygone epoch rife with  warmer, less oxygenated lakes, streams and rivers. And earth was getting warmer too? bold assumptions my friend.



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 2:34 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 2:34 PM on January 2, 2010 :

Could it be that you have relatives who showed you their photo albums of a bygone epoch rife with  warmer, less oxygenated lakes, streams and rivers. And earth was getting warmer too? bold assumptions my friend.



Because it may be beyond your comprehension does not make something unknowable.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:24 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
derwood
How many mutations do you think it took to produce this phenotype in one generation:

That was an unbeneficial mutation.
That's a non-answer, coupled with an ignorant statement.

Porkchop, man! You don't understand what you're talking about! You need to learn that, and stop making claims altogether. Because very few of your claims have been correct so far.

What is the rate of good ones to bad ones?
This is what i'm talking about. Sheer ignorance.

Mutations are not "good" or "bad" per se. The environment lets some multiply, and makes some disappear.

If we went to live in caves and tunnels, being small would come in handy.

Look at all the diseases we have today due to bad mutations. Show me some good one like the example you just pointed out.
I sense defiance. Too much of it, from someone as ignorant on the matter as you are.

"Good" or "beneficial" mutations are to be considered in a certain environment.

From Wiki:

Although most mutations that change protein sequences are harmful, some mutations have a positive effect on an organism. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased. This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.


I've noticed that, when you get answers, you play dumb (just like Lester).

Could it be that you have relatives who showed you their photo albums of a bygone epoch rife with  warmer, less oxygenated lakes, streams and rivers. And earth was getting warmer too? bold assumptions my friend.
Assumptions? What if we show you that it has been demonstrated? Would you say "Oh... Then i take it back. Sorry, i'm so ashamed! I'll be more careful in the future."?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:13 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop, we give you so much, and you give us so little...

Not even attention.

You have nothing to support your position, and yet you maintain it in spite of the lots of things we show you to support ours.

About "good" mutations, from here:


Q: Are there favorable mutations?

A: There are, but it can be hard to tell.


For a number of reasons it is not simple to give examples of favorable mutations. First of all, as we have seen, traits may be favorable or unfavorable, depending upon the environment. Secondly it is not usually known to what extent a trait is genetically fixed and to what extent it reflects a reaction to the environment. Thirdly we don't usually know what genes effect which traits. Moreover a mutation may be favorable in the sense that it permits survival in an unfavorable environment and yet be unfavorable in a better environment.

However there are a number of good examples:

 
1. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
     In modern times antibiotics, drugs that target specific features of bacteria, have become very popular. Bacteria evolve very quickly so it is not surprising that they have evolved resistance to antibiotics. As a general thing this involves changing the features that antibiotics target.

     Commonly, but not always, these mutations decrease the fitness of the bacteria, i.e., in environments where there are not antibiotics present, they don't reproduce as quickly as bacteria without the mutation. This is not always true; some of these mutations do not involve any loss of fitness. What is more, there are often secondary mutations that restore fitness.

     Bacteria are easy to study. This is an advantage in evolutionary studies because we can see evolution happening in the laboratory. There is a standard experiment in which the experimenter begins with a single bacterium and lets it reproduce in a controlled environment. Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendents are clones. Since reproduction is not perfect mutations happen. The experimenter can set the environment so that mutations for a particular attribute are selected. The experimenter knows both that the mutation was not present originally and, hence, when it occurred.

     In the wild it is usually impossible to determine when a mutation occurred. Usually all we know (and often we do not even know that) is the current distribution of particular traits.

     The situation with insects and pesticides is similar to that of bacteria and antibiotics. Pesticides are widely used to kill insects. In turn the insects quickly evolve in ways to become immune to the pesticides.

  2. Bacteria that eat nylon
     Well, no, they don't actually eat nylon; they eat short molecules (nylon oligomers) found in the waste waters of plants that produce nylon. They metabolize short nylon oligomers, breaking the nylon linkages with a couple of related enzymes. Since the bonds involved aren't found in natural products, the enzymes must have arisen since the time nylon was invented (around the 1940s). It would appear this happened by new mutations in that time period.

     These enzymes which break down the nylon oligomers appear to have arisen by frameshift mutation from some other gene which codes for a functionally unrelated enzyme. This adaptation has been experimentally duplicated. In the experiments, non-nylon-metabolizing strains of Pseudomonas were grown in media with nylon oligomers available as the primary food source. Within a relatively small number of generations, they developed these enzyme activities. This would appear to be an example of documented occurrence of beneficial mutations in the lab.
  3. Sickle cell resistance to malaria
     The sickle cell allele causes the normally round blood cell to have a sickle shape. The effect of this allele depends on whether a person has one or two copies of the allele. It is generally fatal if a person has two copies. If they have one they have sickle shaped blood cells.

     In general this is an undesirable mutation because the sickle cells are less efficient than normal cells. In areas where malaria is prevalent it turns out to be favorable because people with sickle shaped blood cells are less likely to get malaria from mosquitoes.

     This is an example where a mutation decreases the normal efficiency of the body (its fitness in one sense) but none-the-less provides a relative advantage.

  4. Lactose tolerance
   Lactose intolerance in adult mammals has a clear evolutionary explanation; the onset of lactose intolerance makes it easy to wean the young. Human beings, however, have taken up the habit of eating milk products. This is not universal; it is something that originated in cultures that kept cattle and goats. In these cultures lactose tolerance had a strong selective value. In the modern world there is a strong correlation between lactose tolerance and having ancestors who lived in cultures that exploited milk as a food.

     It should be understood that it was a matter of chance that the lactose tolerance mutation appeared in a group where it was advantageous. It might have been established first by genetic drift within a group which then discovered that they could use milk.

  5. Resistance to atherosclerosis
     Atherosclerosis is principally a disease of the modern age, one produced by modern diets and modern life-styles. There is a community in Italy near Milan (see Appendices II and III for biological details) whose residents don't get atherosclerosis because of a fortunate mutation in one of their forebearers. This mutation is particularly interesting because the person who had the original mutation has been identified.

     Note that this is a mutation that is favorable in modern times because (a) people live longer and (b) people have diets and life-styles that are not like those of our ancestors. In prehistoric times this would not have been a favorable mutation. Even today we cannot be certain that this mutation is reproductively favorable, i.e., that people with this mutation will have more than the average number of descendents. It is clear, however, that the mutation is personally advantageous to the individuals having it.

  6. Immunity to HIV
     HIV infects a number of cell types including T-lymphocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells and neurons. AIDS occurs when lymphocytes, particularly CD4+ T cells are killed off, leaving the patient unable to fight off opportunistic infections. The HIV virus has to attach to molecules that are expressed on the surface of the T-cells. One of these molecules is called CD4 (or CD4 receptor); another is C-C chemokine receptor 5, known variously as CCR5, CCCKR5 and CKR5. Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cells. Homozygous individuals are resistant to HIV infection and AIDS. The frequency of the mutant allele is quite high in some populations that have never been exposed to AIDS so it seems likely that there was prior selection for this allele.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:46 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

More on ApoA-Milano, wish I had that one.

Beneficial mutation prevents heart disease

In 1980, a man from a small town called Limone Sul Garda in northern Italy went to a doctor for some problem, not heart related.

Testing of his blood showed very high levels of triglycerides, and very low levels of HDL, the good form of cholesterol. By all rights, the man should have either been dead from, or in imminent danger of a heart attack.

But his arteries were clear.
Analysis of his blood showed he had a very special form of Lipoprotein, a type of HDL. And further work with this particular type of Lipoprotein revealed astounding results.

In some of the initial small scale tests of this form of HDL, volunteers were given one shot a week of it, for a trial that lasted five weeks.

Measurements of the blockage in their arteries showed that total blockage was reduced by 4% in five weeks. While this may not sound like much, to a cardiologist, it's equivalent to taking years off of your cardiac age.

Further testing and analysis with animals show fantastic results. While standard HDL's are desirable, this substance has been shown to for all intents and purposes, to completely reverse heart disease.

Various articles have referred to it as "Drano for the arteries".

Research is continuing with a slightly modified, bioengineered form and results are extremely promising.

The cholesterol (and yes, it is cholesterol) that is saving these people's lives is called ApoA-Milano.

And of the forty or fifty people in that tiny Italian town, all descended from a man born in 1760, a man who had a small change in his genes, not a single one has yet to die from heart disease!




(Edited by Apoapsis 1/2/2010 at 6:49 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:05 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very interesting, Apoapsis.

Those things are amazing and normal at the same time.

I feel like the mere existence of dishonest misquoting creationists make scientists care too much about how they say things (how things are said is, to Creationists, much more important than facts). You know what i mean?

I'm sure some scientists think about it twice before saying "Amazing!" or "Designed", out of fear that some creationist will misquote them.

anti-evolutionist
to wisp.
sorry to do this, but I don't have enough time to go into detail.
[color=teal]A classic creationist problem, for some strange reason.
so I will just address key points of your post and hope you can understand what I am talking about
Key points...

I wanted to know what you were trying to do when you "shortened my post".

Also this:
would it be wrong of me to suggest that this fish never left the water at all?
I would probably be with you on this one.

Why do you ask?
I still want to know why you were asking.

I also asked you if you thought it was ok for me to "attack" porkchop. Because you said this:
then you attack Porkchop for the specific statement he (incorrectly) made. abd its implied meaning.
once again, as you should
First you say it's saddens you, and then that i should.

Those are not necessarily opposite, but i'd like for you to clarify anyway.

Also, you didn't say if you agreed that your long definition of HDLSS meant simply "good for land".

Also, i would like a simple, clear and honest "Yes, i think porkchop was wrong."

My comments about ostriches and bats were also "key points", and you ignored them. By mentioning that the bat has solid bones and the ostrich has spongy bones i used them to debunk your notion that the Crassigyrinus' hinder legs look like other legs because they do the same, and not because of homology.

It was an important point.


I will request you refrain from using hyperbolic statements about generic groups.
Oh... Nah, sorry. Generalizations work. They're useful.

Here's a generalization: Men are taller than women.

Any objections?
such as "Christians always..." or "evolutionists always..."
I don't recall having said anything like that.
when you said "I don't recall having said anything like that" you where referring to my use of "quotation marks". as you can see in this paragraph alone, when I quote you I use colour. (this can be a problem when I quote others, but then I am more careful to say John Smith said " ... ")
So what?

You asked me to refrain from doing something. Does that not imply that i did do it?

If that's not the case, i will request you refrain from  requesting i refrain from doing things i have never done (because it's either dishonest or silly).

men are usually taller than women. but not always. thus making your statement a generalisation, but acceptable.
GeneraliZation, with a "z".

I don't understand your "but". I would replace it with an "and".

"But" is used to partially invalidate the previous statement. You have not done so.

where as
*Whereas.
if only some men where usually taller than woman, then I would have a problem with your statement. (this is a metaphor in case you where wondering)
I don't get it.

Do you mean "a hypothetical case"?

Well, if it wasn't true that men are taller than women, i just wouldn't say it.

Are you requesting again for me to stop doing what i never did? Or just stating that it would bother you?

you said "You care about words. We care about facts." but then later said "*should HAVE"
I can not help but be amused by the irony.
Aye. I get that too often.

Did you think i wasn't aware of it?

Words are like a road. If you have a good road, you forget about the road. If the road has bumps and holes, they kinda distract you.

Nono... Words are like a map. When we talk about Evolution we try to make the map as accurate as possible.
A map is accurate if it correlates with the territory.
Creationists, on the other hand, think the map IS the territory.

If some part of the map is inaccurate (not that you've been able to point it out so far), discard it or replace it. Don't deny the territory, because it's there. Lots of us have been there, and strolled about.

when you said no function you literally meant NO function! so the legs have no function. not even under water...
Well, yeah... I thought that was clear...
my answer to your question "why did God create fish with NON-FUNCTIONAL legs?" would be: he wouldn't.
Not even if it would be interesting?

Did you say that was a joke?
If so, please, avoid it. Because it's very hard to tell.

"Yahweh adds features because they're interesting" doesn't look like more of a joke than the rest of the creationist claims. Thank you in advance.

Ok then... "It wouldn't" sounds like a testable claim. Doesn't it?

I love testable claims.
when a tadpole grows into a frog it no longer needs a tail, and loses it. perhaps (and this is total speculation) the small, totally useless, front legs of the creature are the remnants of a more practically sized apendage from the creatures childhood.
Cool.

What if i showed you that you're wrong?

What if i showed you a little Crassigyrinus whose former legs show the same apparent uselessness?

Would you conclude something of this?
a) Yahweh DOES add useless features to some creatures.
b) Yahweh does not exist.
c) Yahweh didn't create life.
d) Those legs devolved due to Adam's diet.
e) The Crassigyrinus is the work of the Devil.

I can't think of other options... Can you?

the front legs; I totally agree that they look like they can do nothing. but as stated in this post, there is the possibility that they once did something.
You mean YOU think it's possible (because it would fit in your completely unsupported faith).

But at least you're making predictions (just like we do).

Predictions that harmonize with YEC and not with the ToE should all be wrong.

Your prediction harmonizes with both. It would be better if you found predictions that only harmonized with YEC, but that's ok. At least you can falsify YEC with your prediction.

aside from that... the fact they look useless doesn't mean they are the result of devolution (or partial evolution)
It probably means vestigiality.

yes. "totally outrageous" was a hyperbolic statement
Ok. Good.
but at least it was a hyperbolic statement directed at a single quote, and not at the opposition in general (which for me would be evolutionists)
At least??

The fact that it was directed to a single quote IS what makes it worse. Otherwise it's a generalization. Generalizations are useful. Hyperboles applied to single cases are not.

this is what is called taking the moral high ground.
What do you mean?

Taking the moral high ground would be being honest.

Do you see honesty in porkchop and Lester?

being a creationist, I am definitely b). maybe c) depending on the strictness of your definition
c) (dishonesty) would imply saying things knowing they're not true, or half truths, or anything in order to deceive someone or confound the subject.

You claimed that WE claimed something about them, and i'm hoping you'll quote it or take it back.
honestly I am still a little confused myself about who is claimimg what with HDLSS's.
I didn't even claim to know what it is, as you might have noticed.

So find any claim from us regarding HDLSS, or take your claim back, please.

Porkchop should do it too, but he's not as honest as you seem to be.

that is why I am claiming MY views and am opposing all who post anything that is dissimilar.
Oh, shut up! You said:


the evolutionists argue that:
- HDLSS are a stepping stone between fish and land animals
- the existence of HDLSS's in the fossil record support the ancestry of fish to man.
- the existence of HDLSS's in living specimens show that not all original "legged fish" (I shall now call them that) did not evolve into land creatures.

Find me some quotes, or take that back.

To me, it's an obscure and useless unscientific concept.
I could be wrong.
If there's some use and a precise definition of that concept, i know nothing of it.

the section you talk about "resemblance", I will not go into that now anymore than to say that I see the phylogenetic tree of life as being a good example of the facts being twisted to fit the model.
Excellent. Anything concrete that would merit starting a new thread? Or just tossing unsupported vague attacks?

as for testing for "highness". the manner in which this word was used (when it was used by me) means that testing for efficiency and effectiveness would suffice.
It wouldn't, you see?
Put in like a number of organisms and evaluate how "effectively" they move on land (i guess you mean energy/distance or something like that).
Even if you could figure out the precise numbers, there's no objective criterion to decide when we see "highness".

and I think I read you say something about English not being your first language? interesting...
your doing quite a good job in that case
Thanks. I try.

PS: this is likely to be my last post for another few weeks. so you may all go back to your bickering and squabbling if you like ^_^
Vacations?

Have a great time. And don't forget our debate.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:14 PM on January 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 2:34 PM on January 2, 2010 :

That sounds like alot of mutations to have to occur to effect that. And these were all mistakes?




How many does it sound like?

And is that number some sort of problem?

And if so, how so?


Could it be that you have relatives who showed you their photo albums of a bygone epoch rife with  warmer, less oxygenated lakes, streams and rivers. And earth was getting warmer too? bold assumptions my friend.




PORKCHOP WROTE:


That sounds like alot of mutations to have to occur to effect that. And these were all mistakes?



I ASKED:

How many does it sound like?

And is that number some sort of problem?

And if so, how so?


One will note that Porkchop did not even attempt to answer my direct, relevant questions regarding his assertion.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:07 PM on January 3, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 2:26 PM on January 2, 2010 :
Quote from derwood at 12:20 PM on January 2, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 5:12 PM on December 31, 2009 :
This would mean it's organs would undergo metamorphic changes, it's limbs, nervous system, blood type etc. It's a hard pill to swallow for me.
You're exaggerating. From the creature that already had lungs, limbs, elbows, wrists and fingers (without leaving the water yet) the changes weren't as dramatic as you're depicting them.

To gain fur, warm bloodedness, efficient air breathing capability, skin to no longer need moisture, stronger limbs, different jaw structure, ear bone structure, ability to give live birth, diaphram, etc,etc  I do not believe is exaggerating. How many mutations had to fall into place?


How many mutations do you think it took to produce this phenotype in one generation:






That was an unbeneficial mutation.


It was not my intent to present this as a beneficial mutation.  It was my intent to show the shallowness of the typical YEC assumptions regarding the impact of mutations.

How many mutations do you think it took to produce that phenotype in a single generation?


You seem to think that many, many, mutations are required to produce even minor effects - heck, Lester, with his science-related doctorate, even went so far as to claim once that phenotypic changes (afeter he learned what phenotype was, that is) require a one mutation=one new protein effect.

So, give it a shot.  You keep claiming 'millions of mutations' and so on - let's see if you even understand how mutations affect phenotype.




What is the rate of good ones to bad ones?

Few to many, but both pale in comparison to neutral ones.

Look at all the diseases we have today due to bad mutations.

And the list keeps growing, right?
ugh

Show me some good one like the example you just pointed out.

How would we look for good mutations?

But first, please answer my questions regarding your constant claims.


If you cannot do so, then do you really think it is intellectually honest to keep asserting what you do?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:14 PM on January 3, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 1:14 PM on January 3, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 2:26 PM on January 2, 2010 :
Quote from derwood at 12:20 PM on January 2, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 5:12 PM on December 31, 2009 :
This would mean it's organs would undergo metamorphic changes, it's limbs, nervous system, blood type etc. It's a hard pill to swallow for me.
You're exaggerating. From the creature that already had lungs, limbs, elbows, wrists and fingers (without leaving the water yet) the changes weren't as dramatic as you're depicting them.

To gain fur, warm bloodedness, efficient air breathing capability, skin to no longer need moisture, stronger limbs, different jaw structure, ear bone structure, ability to give live birth, diaphram, etc,etc  I do not believe is exaggerating. How many mutations had to fall into place?


How many mutations do you think it took to produce this phenotype in one generation:




That was an unbeneficial mutation.


It was not my intent to present this as a beneficial mutation.  It was my intent to show the shallowness of the typical YEC assumptions regarding the impact of mutations.

How many mutations do you think it took to produce that phenotype in a single generation?


You seem to think that many, many, mutations are required to produce even minor effects - heck, Lester, with his science-related doctorate, even went so far as to claim once that phenotypic changes (afeter he learned what phenotype was, that is) require a one mutation=one new protein effect.

So, give it a shot.  You keep claiming 'millions of mutations' and so on - let's see if you even understand how mutations affect phenotype.




What is the rate of good ones to bad ones?

Few to many, but both pale in comparison to neutral ones.

Look at all the diseases we have today due to bad mutations.

And the list keeps growing, right?
ugh

Show me some good one like the example you just pointed out.

How would we look for good mutations?

But first, please answer my questions regarding your constant claims.


If you cannot do so, then do you really think it is intellectually honest to keep asserting what you do?




My constant claims: Is that I find it too incredible that a fish would mutate to become a land mammal.

As for the "'millions of mutations" theory, do not the evolutionists say it takes millions of years to effect such changes of species ? And a dwarf can come about in 1 birth from a bad mutation. Your point is that it can happen quickly? was it one mutation? I am not a biologist as you can guess.

But what about what I mentioned earlier, A fish needs moisture to live and leaving the water causes loss of moisture, so did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?




-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:06 PM on January 3, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:06 PM on January 3, 2010 :

My constant claims: Is that I find it too incredible that a fish would mutate to become a land mammal.



Many students are never able to understand calculus either.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:57 PM on January 3, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I understood that, even took it in college.



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:00 PM on January 3, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My constant claims: Is that I find it too incredible that a fish would mutate to become a land mammal.

As for the "'millions of mutations" theory, do not the evolutionists say it takes millions of years to effect such changes of species ? And a dwarf can come about in 1 birth from a bad mutation. Your point is that it can happen quickly? was it one mutation? I am not a biologist as you can guess.

But what about what I mentioned earlier, A fish needs moisture to live and leaving the water causes loss of moisture, so did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?



Amphibians are not immune to the effects of exposure, hence their semi-aquatic lifestyle. Most amphibians still live in or near water because their skin dries out very quickly. Those that do not must protect themselves in other ways such as burrowing to avoid the effects of exposure/dehydration. This suggests a stepping stone between fully aquatic (fish) and non-aquatic (reptiles) animals.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:45 PM on January 3, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right, what you say make sense for amphibians.
But...
a fish is not that way and my leap of faith to embrace the scenario that a fish would start to acquire dryness tolerance would be quite a leap. But not only that, but when/why would the fish start to undergo mutations to allow live birth and say goodbye to egg laying? These are 2 factors that require a leap of faith for me. There are others.


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:04 PM on January 3, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My constant claims: Is that I find it too incredible that a fish would mutate to become a land mammal.

Do you find it incredible based on your expertise in biology?  Do you know anything about how mutations work?  If you don't understand the subject, your claim is meaningless.  

As for the "'millions of mutations" theory, do not the evolutionists say it takes millions of years to effect such changes of species ? And a dwarf can come about in 1 birth from a bad mutation. Your point is that it can happen quickly? was it one mutation? I am not a biologist as you can guess.

Do you know what HOX genes are and how a mutation can affect them?  If you don't know, you're arguing blind with no real understanding of how mutations work and what they can do.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:07 PM on January 3, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:00 PM on January 3, 2010 :
I understood that, even took it in college.



Excellent.  Then you should be able to study the evidence and understand it if you want to.  

If you don't want to understand, nobody is going to make you.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:39 PM on January 3, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop, stop quoting whole posts. It's annoying. Particularly when you just won't answer to anything.

porkchop
derwood
How many mutations do you think it took to produce that phenotype in a single generation?
That was an unbeneficial mutation.
Nice dodge.
What is the rate of good ones to bad ones?
Oh, more questions... Delightful...

It has been answered too. "Good" ones are much less than bad ones, and both are much less than neutral ones.

I also told you that "goodness" has to be considered in regard to the environment.

You keep getting free answers, which don't matter to you anyway.

Why do you even ask?

You_don't_care.

Show me some good one like the example you just pointed out.
Still no answer... Do you not understand the questions?

If so, SAY SO!

By the way, Apoapsis and i DID show you what you asked, and you keep playing dumb.

Porkchop, you're a fraud.

porkchop
derwood
porkchop
Show me some good one like the example you just pointed out.
How would we look for good mutations?
(dishonest dodge)
What? You think we don't notice?

porkchop
derwood
How many does it sound like?

And is that number some sort of problem?

And if so, how so?
Could it be that you have relatives who showed you their photo albums of a bygone epoch rife with  warmer, less oxygenated lakes, streams and rivers. And earth was getting warmer too? bold assumptions my friend.
Bold dodges, my friend.

You just keep making stupid claims or asking dumb questions, never caring about the replies or the answers.

Apoapsis showed you this:


And what did you do? You kept playing dumb.

derwood
But first, please answer my questions regarding your constant claims.
Haha! Good luck with that, derwood. xD

porkchop
My constant claims: Is that I find it too incredible that a fish would mutate to become a land mammal.
Your claim is that you find it "too incredible"?

You. The one who has demonstrate not only a complete ignorance on the subject he's trying to discuss, but a great deal of dishonesty. The one who doesn't seem to learn from the many answers he receives.

Well, your claim doesn't seem too relevant.

As for the "'millions of mutations" theory,
That's a hypothesis. You don't even know what a theory is.

But what about what I mentioned earlier, A fish needs moisture to live and leaving the water causes loss of moisture, so did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?
So basic...

Man, those questions are embarrassing. The answer is so very simple... Moisture WAS an issue to the intermediate species (just like it still is to amphibian species).

What you're questioning is Evolution! No more, no less.

The "good" mutations we showed you are examples of this very thing you're questioning.

You question reality in its face.

porkchop
firechild
Amphibians are not immune to the effects of exposure, hence their semi-aquatic lifestyle. Most amphibians still live in or near water because their skin dries out very quickly. Those that do not must protect themselves in other ways such as burrowing to avoid the effects of exposure/dehydration. This suggests a stepping stone between fully aquatic (fish) and non-aquatic (reptiles) animals.
Right, what you say make sense for amphibians.
But...
a fish is not that way and my leap of faith to embrace the scenario that a fish would start to acquire dryness tolerance would be quite a leap.
Faith?

We've shown you fish out of the water. You think they are not better prepared to be out of the water than fish who never go out of the water?

You're insulting our intelligence by mentioning "faith".

But not only that, but when/why would the fish start to undergo mutations to allow live birth and say goodbye to egg laying?
You just keep embarrassing yourself...

In our evolutionary line that didn't have to happen. Not to our fish ancestors. They kept laying eggs when they went to land (which is obvious, since reptiles keep laying eggs).

In other evolutionary lines, we do have examples of viviparous fish.

Lots and lots of them, actually.

Look:

A

   * Anablepidae
   * Atlantic sharpnose shark
   * Australian blacktip shark
   * Australian sharpnose shark

B

   * Barbeled houndshark
   * Bignose shark
   * Blacknose shark
   * Blackspot shark
   * Blacktip shark
   * Blue shark
   * Bonnethead
   * Borneo river shark
   * Borneo shark
   * Brazilian sharpnose shark
   * Broadfin shark
   * Brotula
   * Bull shark

C

   * Caribbean reef shark
   * Caribbean sharpnose shark
   * Creek whaler

D

   * Daggernose shark
   * Dermogenys


D cont.

   * Dusky shark

E

   * Embiotocidae

F

   * Finetooth shark
   * Four-eyed fish

G

   * Ganges shark
   * Golomyanka
   * Goodeidae
   * Graceful shark
   * Grandfather hapuku
   * Great hammerhead
   * Grey reef shark
   * Grey sharpnose shark

H

   * Hairlip brotula
   * Halfbeak
   * Hardnose shark

L

   * Lemon shark
   * Live-bearing aquarium fish

N

   * Nervous shark
   * Nomorhamphus

O

   * Oceanic whitetip shark
   * Onesided livebearer

P

   * Pacific sharpnose shark


P cont.

   * Poeciliidae
   * Pondicherry shark

R

   * Rose fish

S

   * Sandbar shark
   * Scalloped bonnethead
   * Scalloped hammerhead
   * Scoophead
   * Sliteye shark
   * Smooth hammerhead
   * Smooth tooth blacktip shark
   * Snaggletooth shark
   * Spadenose shark
   * Speartooth shark
   * Spinner shark
   * Spottail shark

W

   * Whitecheek shark
   * Whitefin hammerhead
   * Whitenose shark
   * Winghead shark
   * Wrestling halfbeak


And we also have the step in between. Fish who undergo internal fertilization but keep eggs inside until they hatch.

But will you say "Oh... Then i was wrong. I take that back."?

Of course you won't.

These are 2 factors that require a leap of faith for me. There are others.
Ok, perhaps you need faith, since you lack understanding.

We don't have that problem.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:41 PM on January 3, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop, when you have more questions, google them first.

If you find a serious source (even Wikipedia will do), and still have a problem with the answer it provides (it doesn't seem to make sense to you, or you don't understand it), THEN come and ask.

Like i always say, it's ok not to know.
It's not ok to disrespect knowledge by negating it, pretending to possess it or acting like it's not necessary to argue.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:46 AM on January 4, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:06 PM on January 3, 2010 :
My constant claims: Is that I find it too incredible that a fish would mutate to become a land mammal.


So, you pesonally find it "incredible."

WHO CARES???

Unless you can prevent some sort of science-based rationale,. your uninformed personal opinion is worthless.



As for the "'millions of mutations" theory, do not the evolutionists say it takes millions of years to effect such changes of species ?

I don't think so.  It usually takes millions of years to produce evolutionary changes that we would classify as being at the genus and above levels, but speciation can occur relatively quickly, on the order of a few dozens of generations, if the circumstances are 'just right'.


And a dwarf can come about in 1 birth from a bad mutation. Your point is that it can happen quickly? was it one mutation? I am not a biologist as you can guess.


Yes, it is a single point mutation - a single point mutation in a gene that encodes one of several types of receptors for one of several types of growth factors (hormones, essentially).  And that little change can alter limb length and proportion, decrease the number of joints in the fingers and toes, alter head shape, etc.

My point is - if that amount of phenotypic alteration can be caused by one point mutation, what is the reasoning behind the requirement that it must have taken MILLIONS to get a mammal from a fish?

You say you are not a biologist, yet you seem to insist that your personal 'disbelief' is sufficient for an hypothesis to be rejected.
Why is that?


But what about what I mentioned earlier, A fish needs moisture to live and leaving the water causes loss of moisture, so did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?


I don't have the foggiest idea.  Gee, I guess because I cannot answer one specific question about something that evolution must be wrong.  If I ask you a question about Creation and you cannot answer it, can I then believe that Creationism is false, too?

Any other brilliant insights you wish to produce for us to further demolish a theory that has existed for over 150 years and not been falsified?


(Edited by derwood 1/4/2010 at 09:12 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:58 AM on January 4, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:04 PM on January 3, 2010 :
Right, what you say make sense for amphibians.
But...
a fish is not that way and my leap of faith to embrace the scenario that a fish would start to acquire dryness tolerance would be quite a leap. But not only that, but when/why would the fish start to undergo mutations to allow live birth and say goodbye to egg laying? These are 2 factors that require a leap of faith for me. There are others.



You know what requires a leap of faith for me?

Believing - simply believing - that one particular  deity made a fully formed adult human male by blowing on dirt.  Dirt which we are told this deity also created.  And that this all powerful deity then didn't realize that the man that He just created might need a human mate, so He made all the other animals - all hundreds of millions of them - and paraded them before this dirt-man so that he could choose among these millions one ot have sex with, and not being able to choose, the Hebrew tribal deity then had a stroke of brilliance - why not make a female human from the male?

See, that is just too stupid, childish and idiotic fo rme to believe.


Anyway - I guess you do not know that there are fish that produce live young.  I guess you don't know that mammal embryoes do, in fact, 'hatch'.    And so on.

It is easy to engage in fallacious arguments from personal disbelief - especailly when you are monumentally ignorant of the subject in which you are arguing - but please do not conflate asking uninformed questions with legitimate debate.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:03 AM on January 4, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why are you asking me to answer your questions? You guys are the ones that have all the answers. I question evolution and I am a pariah!  Wisp is telling me how dishonest I am and a fraud, but then he goes on to address my questions. If they are not worthy, why do you bother answering them? If I did not ask, then there would be no debate right? I'm sure you guys are having fun putting me down, right, you enjoy that?

Speaking of quests not answered:
---

But what about what I mentioned earlier, A fish needs moisture to live and leaving the water causes loss of moisture, so did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?
So basic...

Man, those questions are embarrassing. The answer is so very simple... Moisture WAS an issue to the intermediate species (just like it still is to amphibian species).

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT "INTERMEDIATE" species!~!!!

QUEST: Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not such a life or death issue while in water?







(Edited by porkchop 1/4/2010 at 8:26 PM).


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:37 PM on January 4, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:37 PM on January 4, 2010 :
QUEST: Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?



It did not. Noone is claiming that it did. This particular lineage of fish evolved into amphibians, so the skin moisture was still an issue. The evolution which negates the issue of requiring moisture occured much later when reptiles evolved. These animals had protection from desiccation that earlier animals (fish and amphibians) did not have.

But not only that, but when/why would the fish start to undergo mutations to allow live birth and say goodbye to egg laying?


Actually there is very good reason for natural selection favouring fish that had mutations that caused live birth over those which laid eggs. There is also an explainable cause.

The ability to produce live young is so beneficial and therefore so strongly selected for that it has evolved more than once in different scenarios. It evolved in cartilagenous fish (sharks and rays), in bony fishes, in reptiles and in mammals as well as dozens of times in invertebrate evolution at different times. There are two forms of live birth, ovoviviparity and viviparity. The former is where an egg develops inside the mother but gains no further nutrition (think of the mother as an incubator) and is the more primitive form of live bearing. The latter is where the mother provides nutients to the young during development. The benefit of producing live young is reducing the chances of young being eaten by predators. Because this is directly linked to reproductive success it is more heavily selected for than almost any other trait.

(Edited by firechild 1/4/2010 at 8:44 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:36 PM on January 4, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:37 PM on January 4, 2010 :
Why are you asking me to answer your questions?


It's a debate board.

You guys are the ones that have all the answers. I question evolution and I am a pariah!


Martyr complex, eh?


 Wisp is telling me how dishonest I am and a fraud, but then he goes on to address my questions.


I'd say disingenuous rather than dishonest.


If they are not worthy, why do you bother answering them?


An interest in educating the general public.  It's amazing how many hits this place gets compared to the number of posters.  Todd Wood himself is known to lurk.

If I did not ask, then there would be no debate right?


We're waiting for a debate.  Registering disbelief does not count.

I'm sure you guys are having fun putting me down, right, you enjoy that?


Why don't you quit playing dumb and participate in a real debate?

Speaking of quests not answered:
---

But what about what I mentioned earlier, A fish needs moisture to live and leaving the water causes loss of moisture, so did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?
So basic...

Man, those questions are embarrassing. The answer is so very simple... Moisture WAS an issue to the intermediate species (just like it still is to amphibian species).

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT "INTERMEDIATE" species!~!!!

QUEST: Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not such a life or death issue while in water?


Mutations allowed some vertebrates to exploit life on land and reproduce.  Period.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:23 PM on January 4, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
porkchop
Wisp is telling me how dishonest I am and a fraud, but then he goes on to address my questions.
I'd say disingenuous rather than dishonest.
He systematically ignores the answers when he doesn't think he can question them.

That's dishonesty.

porkchop
Why are you asking me to answer your questions?
Because you make claims, and you don't support them (and yet, funny, you don't take them back when refuted).

You don't even answer what you mean. You ask for something, we ask you what would qualify, and you shut up. Then why ask in the first place?

You say "too many mutations for a fish to become a human". We ask how many, and why is that a problem to you, and you don't answer.

Then your claim was meaningless.
Is there any other way to see it?

You guys are the ones that have all the answers.
Nobody has "all the answers". Unlike Creationism, Evolution is a gigantic field of study.
I question evolution and I am a pariah!
You make uninformed questions with a constant display of passive arrogance.

You don't say "I'm confused about this" (which is true). You say "That can't be" or "It takes faith".

And when we answer to them, you don't give us any hint that you've learned anything.

You could say, for example:
-Oh, that makes sense. Thanks.

Or:
-I don't understand. Could you clarify this point?

Or:
-But if that is true, isn't this a problem?

There are many things you could say instead of dishonestly ignoring the answer, or saying "
bold assumptions my friend".

You need to understand how ignorant you are on these subjects before saying such a thing. You are not able to detect boldness.

Wisp is telling me how dishonest I am and a fraud, but then he goes on to address my questions.
Yes. You people have this tendency to claim victory when we don't answer to something.
If they are not worthy, why do you bother answering them?
Just for show, basically.

I wish i responded because i thought you'd learn something. I'd love that.

If I did not ask, then there would be no debate right?
There IS no debate. You just ask questions, trying to "get" us.

I bet we know much more than you about Creationism too.

I'm sure you guys are having fun putting me down, right, you enjoy that?
Not at all. I prefer honesty and learning.

You can start now, and you'll be treated much better.

Speaking of quests not answered:
But what about what I mentioned earlier, A fish needs moisture to live and leaving the water causes loss of moisture, so did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?
So basic...

Man, those questions are embarrassing. The answer is so very simple... Moisture WAS an issue to the intermediate species (just like it still is to amphibian species).
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT "INTERMEDIATE" species!~!!!
Yes, you are. And you don't even know.
QUEST: Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?
Why? Organisms mutate just because.

But, to answer to your specific uninformed question: It didn't happen.

Who says it did?

It's just a strawman. You're putting words in our mouths.

Find me any scientist who says that such a thing happened, or take that back.

Anyway, even if that DID happen, the smart question would be "Why did those mutations get selected", not "why did the fish mutate".

And, by the way, the mutated fish who had a better resistance to a dry environment IS an intermediate.
And moisture probably WAS an issue for a long time, even when the fish ceased to be a fish (i said it earlier, perhaps you missed it).


By the way, we've shown you some pretty clear "good mutations", even though you didn't answer what would qualify as a "good mutation".

Does that mean that you're satisfied or what?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:57 PM on January 4, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop, the best way to debate a subject is to learn something about the topic first.  There isn't anything wrong about asking questions.  There isn't even anything wrong about expressing disbelief in something.  But as Derwood pointed out, expressing disbelief without supporting why you disbelieve leaves you holding an empty sack - you have nothing to debate.

ToE (as with any science) requires that you put some work into it to gain a fundamental understanding of the basics.  Understanding how Natural Selection works is a beginning.  It's a simple theory, yet very elegant and powerful.  And, believe it or not, every shred of evidence that science has uncovered supports it (ToE).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:19 PM on January 4, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:37 PM on January 4, 2010 :
Why are you asking me to answer your questions?


Because YOU are the one making strawman assertions, usually presented as 'questions',  as if they were irrefutable fact.

Why shoul dwe bother to answer your 'questions' when your questions make it pretty clear that 1. you would not be able to assess the veracity of the answers were they provided (in fact, you have demonstrated a tendency to simply ignore answers and explanations when they are provided since they do not conform to your preconceived and erroneous notions!)  and 2. you do not actually seem interested in havinng your questions answered.  You seem more content to toss out strawmen and nonsense and demand that we answer an ever-increasing number and ever more specific series of 'but what about THIS!' gotcha style questions that you have not taken the time to get a basic grasp of in the first place.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:09 AM on January 5, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:37 PM on January 4, 2010 :
If I did not ask, then there would be no debate right?


Do you even know what 'debate' means?  Here is a hint - it does NOT mean that one person asks a bunch of questions, the answers to which he will either not understand or not accept anyway.

Speaking of quests not answered:
---

But what about what I mentioned earlier, A fish needs moisture to live and leaving the water causes loss of moisture, so did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?

All vertebrates need 'moisture' - that is, water - to live.  What do you think the biggest difference between, say, lizard and fish skin is?


So basic...
 Yes, so why don't YOU know the answer, if it is so basic?

Man, those questions are embarrassing. The answer is so very simple... Moisture WAS an issue to the intermediate species (just like it still is to amphibian species).

'Moisture' is an issue to us today, which is why we have to drink water.  


QUEST: Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not such a life or death issue while in water?

ANS:  Why not?

ANS 2: Stop thinking that each and every alteration of phenotype was a pre-planned or otherwise necessary event.
Stop looking at an end product and trying to 'calculate' the odds of the series of events leading to the end product.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:15 AM on January 5, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

QUEST: Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not such a life or death issue while in water?
ANS:  Why not?
ANS 2: Stop thinking that each and every alteration of phenotype was a pre-planned or otherwise necessary event. Stop looking at an end product and trying to 'calculate' the odds of the series of events leading to the end product.

Why not? well for one thing, natural selection allowed for moisture to not be a life or death factor for a fish WHILE STILL UNDER WATER. Why would natural selection select for this? What advantage did this provide for a fish while still living underwater?

(keeping my posts short&simple and easy to answer)



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:21 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Moisture is still a life or death issue for fish, as it is for mammals, some of which do not spend any time in water at all. You fail to see that your arguements are redundant and make it clear that you lack the basic knowledge of both evolution and biology to understand these more complex steps. These animals still had a requirement to remain wet, just as amphibious fish (such as walking catfish and mudskippers) and amphibians (even terrestrial toads are subject to desiccation and remain in moist burrows in the heat of the day).

Simple explanation is, these animals were still bound to an aquatic life but had evolved an ability to move out of water for short periods allowing them to exploit resources that had as yet been out of reach for vertebrates. This was a HUGE advantage in the scheme of evolution. The selective pressure applied by the changing environment (warm, oxygen poor swamps as we have covered) caused a shift towards fish that could make better use of available oxygen.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:55 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why not? well for one thing, natural selection allowed for moisture to not be a life or death factor for a fish WHILE STILL UNDER WATER.

They were in a WET environment, natural selection wouldn't select fish that could retain moisture while they were living underwater.

Why would natural selection select for
this?


It didn't, while they were totally aquatic, this was not a beneficial trait.

What advantage did this provide for a fish while still living underwater?

While still in the water it provided no benefit.  But when their environment changed, those that could survive a little longer outside of the water would live a little longer, produce more offspring.  So natural selection would favor those adaptations that allowed the fish to stay on land a little longer.  Selection didn't kick in while they were totally aquatic.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:56 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you are saying the fish first started going out of the water then the "tolerance for dryness gene" kicked in?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:22 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you are saying the fish first started going out of the water then the "tolerance for dryness gene" kicked in?

Yes.  After all, no fish dies instantly when it's out of water.  What's the problem?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:34 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What happens when your're fishing and one that you've caught jumps out of the pail? How long do you give it before it dies?




-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:41 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What happens when your're fishing and one that you've caught jumps out of the pail? How long do you give it before it dies?

Couple of minutes.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:56 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by porkchop at Tue January 5, 2010 - 8:41 PM
What happens when your're fishing and one that you've caught jumps out of the pail? How long do you give it before it dies?


It will suffocate before it dies from desiccation. This means that could it breathe air it would live for longer. Possibly long enough to take short forays to the shore to hunt. This would be a huge advantage. So basically, no change to the skin would need to take effect for this advantage to appear, simply a change in the ability to breathe air. Later changes to the skin would be beneficial in allowing the fish to take even longer trips to the shore but these are not required for the initial short term exit from the aquatic environment.

I have a degree in marine biology so am more than happy to discuss the physical and physiological attributes of fish and their evolution. I just hope you are able to keep up because it seems you have been struggling with even the most basic of concepts to date.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:12 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
Sippe

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello I am new here.

While I am sure that my understanding of the subject matters in this debate are probably far inferior to those of you already engaged, I would like to try and take a stab at this.

If I would try to give an explanation to how fish eventually evolved into land living animals it would probably look like this.

As english is not my native language this might be difficult to follow so please be easy on me. =)

At first I think we have to start with an assumption that no two fish are exactly the same even within the same species. I think we can all readily agree with this.

If we then think of a situation where a certain species of fish live in a shallow water environment, say a swamp or swamplike area as this has already been discussed.

It is by no stretch of the imagination then impossible that this swamp would have water that during certain periods dry out to form small pools of water in which said species of fish get trapped.

Some of these shallow pools might even dry up to the point where there is very little water left at all at certain points in time.

Now if we assume (as I wrote in the beginning of this post) that no two fish are alike (even if they are of the same species) it should not be entirely inconcievable that some of these fish trapped in the drying out shallow pools in this swamp can tolerate the lack of moisture and/or oxygen in these pools better than others.

These fish that were more tolerant would then be more likely to survive the drying out of the pools during a hypothetical "dry season". Making them much more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation.

If you continue this process over and over in ever more extreme drying up of pools of water I think it would not only be possible but even quite likely that the species would eventually start developing even more specialized traits like legs, lungs or dehydrationresistant skin.

Did I make any sense at all?

(Edited by Sippe 1/5/2010 at 9:25 PM).
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 9:23 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I appreciate your marine biology expertise. Are you affiliated with Woods Hole?
I even love lobsters. ;-)

However you bring up up another dimension.. ability for fish to breathe air. Same scenario, diff problem, fish out of the pail flops & dies because it cannot breathe. Would this cause air breathing lungs to form?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:27 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, that's what the evidence suggests Sippe. You seem to have a far greater understanding of evolution than does Porkchop. It is exactly these type of environmental stressors (waterways drying up, temperature shift etc) that drive the process of natural selection and therefore evolution.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:29 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:27 PM on January 5, 2010 :
I appreciate your marine biology expertise. Are you affiliated with Woods Hole?
I even love lobsters. ;-)

However you bring up up another dimension.. ability for fish to breathe air. Same scenario, diff problem, fish out of the pail flops & dies because it cannot breathe. Would this cause air breathing lungs to form?


I am actually from the other side of the Pacific so I was not aware of Woods Hole until I just looked it up.

As far as I was aware, fish breathing air is the topic we have been discussing for some time. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Anabantoid fish from South East Asia have an organ called a labyrinth which allows them to breathe air and in fact these fish can be drowned if they are not allowed to come to the surface to breathe. These fish evolved this way due to the selective pressures caused by the environments which we have been discussing. However, they did not evolve to be terrestrial or even amphibious because the mutations that occured did not allow this and/or the selective pressure to move out of the water was not there.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:37 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

otherside of the Pacific, as in Asia?

I believe Sippe's explaination is really a matter of  guesswork, wishful thinking, speculation.
Do you know that the Anabantoid actually evolved as you claim? Again, the "selective pressures caused by the environments they lived in"  is still pure speculation. Does all existence of mammals today hinge on this speculation?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:50 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 25 26 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.