[ChicknLittle]

Anthem-" Surely in all the years of the study of genetics, a mutation has been generated in the lab and passed on. Where are all these new species of bacteria, fruit flies, rats, etc.?" ...
Fruit flies can be bred to have unique traits (red eyes, short wings) but they are still fruit flies because despite a single new trait they can still breed with other fruit flies (the definition of species). New traits will pass on to new generations (a real genetic change), but a new species only results when enough traits are changed to prevent interbreeding between population. The fruit fliy populations you point to are unique and changed genetically, but it will take more change (no obstacle but time) to create a new species.

Unless you believe Daschunds and hairless cats and dairy cattle roamed the plains with saber tooth tigers, you can see the effect human selective breeding pressures (survival benefit for some) can have over a short period. Human desire for smaller, cuter, and more productive domestic animals translated to a survival benefit for animals with certain genes... Applied repeatedly selective pressure on genepools have shifted the feral wolf, bobcat and oxen into the animals we see today. When lifestyles and traits keep the domestic animals from breeding with their wild counterparts a new species is said to have formed. The process of evolution in the wild is similar, only preference is for more practical traits.

The sickle-cell trait is a commonly used example of an adaptive mutation. SickleCell trait is most common in Africa, where it provides some survival advantage against malaria. The downside (sickle cell disease) is outweighed in africa by the benefit, as malaria is prevalent there... hence the gene is spread through the population. Dark skin (protective against the sun) also developed as a trait in populations in the sun belt. These are small genetic changes offering a survival advantage in a certain area in response to an environmental challenge (In sun poor, malaria free areas sickle cell is selected against and fairer skin is selected for.. possibly to allow vitamin D conversion by the sun). These are examples of single mutations which have spread among different human population due to their survival benefits. New species are a matter of degree, and not defined until interbreeding is not possible between to populations. Still, specific examples of evolution in process are everywhere.

Anthem" It takes considerably more than one individual with a mutation for the mutation to persist. Again, it has never been demonstrated. " " All you have to do is cite some examples where a mutation persisted and was an advantage to the organism" Those examples are everywhere... on the microbiology level MRSA is a Staph species subtype that has become resistant to almost all antibiotics except Vancomycin. The resistance in this population is caried on genes selected for by previous generations of bacteria being killed off, leaving only the MRSA subpopulation. With increasing exposure to vancomycin Vancomycin resistant strains are NOW being seen : (. Regarding humans selection of genes promoting dark skin and sickle-cell trait in africa are examples of benificial mutations occuring and spreading through a population due to survival advantage (selection pressure).

Regarding "one example of a beneficial mutation occuring and persisting (being heritable)" I would say that such mutations occur all the time if you accept genetic variety as the definition of benificial mutations (as mutations are random... selective pressures determine if they are benificial and propagated through the species). Most desired traits (height, strength, wings that would allow me to fly) are polygenic and change only by degree, while other desired traits are subtle, making detrimental changes (very high cholesterol) easier to detect, while beneficial spontaneous mutations (lower cholesterol) remain harder to detect except through population studies. Nevertheless, heritable, dramatic and beneficial changes (for certain environments) do occur. Examples 1) Human Hirsuitism (the werewolf gene), a single mutation resulting in a warm coat of hair... good for surviving oil depletion http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA05/wolfman.html 2) Mutation of the 5AR2 gene prevents prostate cancer and hair loss (male pattern baldness) and is heritable, discovered in a 3rd world village noted to have no baldness : ). 3) Polydactyly (multiple fingers) is another Autosomal dominant trait that can pop up in families unexpectadly and be passed down (I find extra fingers benificial, but benificial is subjective). Anyway, isolated mutations obviously occur (thats why they count fingers at a baby's birth : ) and are sometimes benificial (though that is a subjective word).

edit: Not to NOW (oops)

[ChicknLittle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('armegeddon', 'a')nimals or species evolving from one to another would leave millions of fossils showing this gradual change. But, scientists and archeologists are baffled at the deeper they dig, the more bare the earth becomes. They are starting to realize that man just appeared . Thats why mans beginning appears at a certain level of earth.

[ChicknLittle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ChicknLittle', ' ')With increasing exposure to vancomycin Vancomycin resistant strains are not being seen

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ChicknLittle', ' ')With increasing exposure to vancomycin Vancomycin resistant strains are not being seen

[anthem]

Take a gander at this smallpoxgirl:

“According to the story, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the color of tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-colored moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them, and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollution has killed the lichens, the bark of the trees had darkened, and now the light-colored moths became the most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed. As a result, the proportion of light-colored to dark-colored moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-colored moths "evolved" into dark-colored ones.

However, although we believe these facts to be correct, it should be quite clear that they can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, since no new form arose that had not existed before. Dark colored moths had existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or organ, which would cause "speciation."13 In order for one moth species to turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to its genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.

This is the answer to be given to the evolutionist story of Industrial Melanism. However, there is a more interesting side to the story: Not just its interpretation, but the story itself is flawed. As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution, the story of the peppered moths, which is included in every evolutionary biology book and has therefore, become an "icon" in this sense, does not reflect the truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which is known as the "experimental proof" of the story, is actually a scientific scandal. Some basic elements of this scandal are:

• Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell's revealed that only one type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferred to rest beneath small, horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific.

• Scientists who tested Kettlewell's conclusions came up with an even more interesting result: Although the number of light moths would be expected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the dark moths there numbered four times as many as the light ones. This meant that there was no correlation between the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionist sources.

• As the research deepened, the scandal changed dimension: "The moths on tree trunks" photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead moths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the leaves.

These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the late 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to Evolution"courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked, “My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.”

Thus, "the most famous example of natural selection" was relegated to the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal—which was inevitable, because natural selection is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary to what evolutionists claim.”

[pip]

The arguments of the heathens have not been very convincing. Come on guys. I want to see an amoeba become a fish or something. Bacteria evolving into bacteria and fruit flies evolving into fruit flies are not that impressive.

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')volution, as the theory stands (wobbles?) today, requires that new genetic material be introduced through random mutations. How do you, Leanan, propose we go from one species, say a lower primate, to another, say a human, without the addition of new genetic material?

[anthem]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ChicknLittle', 'F')ruit flies can be bred to have unique traits (red eyes, short wings) but they are still fruit flies because despite a single new trait they can still breed with other fruit flies (the definition of species). New traits will pass on to new generations (a real genetic change), but a new species only results when enough traits are changed to prevent interbreeding between population. The fruit fliy populations you point to are unique and changed genetically, but it will take more change (no obstacle but time) to create a new species.

[anthem]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')andom mutations, yes, new material - not necessarily.

Mutations may lead to existing genetic material being expressed differently. We all have a lot of "junk DNA." DNA that was once useful to our ancestors, but no longer is, or that we needed at one point in our lives, but no longer do. Or sometimes just plain old junk - copying errors and such, that survive because they don't do us any harm. A mutation may cause a suppressed gene to become active, or vice-versa.

For example, humans and chimps are nearly identical genetically. We share something like 97.5% of our DNA. Why are we so different?

Because small changes in timing - when genes become active - can make a big difference.

[pip]

You can find a lot of quotes by Darwin expressing the same concerns with the theory that Anthem raises. I'll try to post some later. It would be entertaining to see the board's evolutionists argue with Darwin.

[Eotyrant]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pip', 'Y')ou can find a lot of quotes by Darwin expressing the same concerns with the theory that Anthem raises. I'll try to post some later. It would be entertaining to see the board's evolutionists argue with Darwin.

[pip]

I don't mind looking at evidence. The cambrian explosion, for example. The fossil record goes from nothing but a couple algaes to complex fossils representing the lineage of every animal group existing today. No fossils exist of the evolving ancestors of these animals.

Then there's irreducible complexity.

Then there's spontaneous generation.

Look, evolution got some good things going for it. It’s also got some problems. My problem is that society and science seem to completely overlook all the problems. It’s not a closed case. There is still evidence out there that can’t be explained and in fact seems to go directly against it. It’s embraced so vehemently because we really only have one other choice, and that choice is offensive to an “intellectual”.

[Raxozanne]

What a co-incidence, I was just reading about the cambrian explosion today in this book 'The Sixth Extinction' by Richard Leakey. Never even heard of cambrian before today.

Anyway, this guy says that most evolution occured at short sharp bursts in history when the environment changed quickly and drastically which caused species to either die-off or adapt and says that is how the human chain started off. He says that the forests were retreating because the rift valley opened up stopping some wind from blowing across Africa which made the East side dry out and turn into savannah and apes caught in that bit had to either die out or adapt and he says we adapted into the homo lineage.

He also says that the evolution of intelligence was inevitable and is a self-perpeturating phenomenom. Anyone want to comment on this? He doesn't really give any evidence as to why and I'm sure I read somewhere in the book that if dinosaures hadn't died out then mammals wouldn't have gotten as far as they have today. And reptiles/dinosaures are/weren't exactly evolving bigger brains as far as I know.

[Eotyrant]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pip', 'I') don't mind looking at evidence. The cambrian explosion, for example. The fossil record goes from nothing but a couple algaes to complex fossils representing the lineage of every animal group existing today. No fossils exist of the evolving ancestors of these animals.

[Eotyrant]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', 'W')hat a co-incidence, I was just reading about the cambrian explosion today in this book 'The Sixth Extinction' by Richard Leakey. Never even heard of cambrian before today.

Anyway, this guy says that most evolution occured at short sharp bursts in history when the environment changed quickly and drastically which caused species to either die-off or adapt and says that is how the human chain started off. He says that the forests were retreating because the rift valley opened up stopping some wind from blowing across Africa which made the East side dry out and turn into savannah and apes caught in that bit had to either die out or adapt and he says we adapted into the homo lineage.

[PenultimateManStanding]

The only trouble I can see with these arguments against Darwinian evolution is this: the facts are plain: time is long and the biosphere has not remained static through the eons. Evolution is the word that describes this. Details are debatable; the general phenomenon is indisputable. Does anybody disagree with this? It's a natural science question and it looks like they've done alot study. But it's like everything else, knowledge is incomplete and much is unknown.

[Armageddon]

i love how evolutionists find an odd ape or gorilla skull and tell how they have found this 'missing' link. If evolution was real, there would be millions upon millions of remains showing the gradual change from species to species.

[Eotyrant]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'T')he only trouble I can see with these arguments against Darwinian evolution is this: the facts are plain: time is long and the biosphere has not remained static through the eons. Evolution is the word that describes this. Details are debatable; the general phenomenon is indisputable. Does anybody disagree with this? It's a natural science question and it looks like they've done alot study. But it's like everything else, knowledge is incomplete and much is unknown.

[Eotyrant]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('armegeddon', 'i') love how evolutionists find an odd ape or gorilla skull and tell how they have found this 'missing' link. If evolution was real, there would be millions upon millions of remains showing the gradual change from species to species.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eotyrant', '
')So where do the humans start and the 'gorillas' end, then, hmmm?