Posted on 07/03/2006 10:05:56 AM PDT by doc30
We humans customarily assume that our visual system sits atop a pinnacle of evolutionary success. It enables us to appreciate space in three dimensions, to detect objects from a distance and to move about safely. We are exquisitely able to recognize other individuals and to read their emotions from mere glimpses of their faces. In fact, we are such visual animals that we have difficulty imagining the sensory worlds of creatures whose capacities extend to other realms--a night-hunting bat, for example, that finds small insects by listening to the echoes of its own high-pitched call. Our knowledge of color vision is, quite naturally, based primarily on what humans see: researchers can easily perform experiments on cooperative human subjects to discover, say, what mixtures of colors look the same or different. Although scientists have obtained supporting information from a variety of other species by recording the firing of neurons, we remained unaware until the early 1970s that many vertebrates, mostly animals other than mammals, see colors in a part of the spectrum that is invisible to humans: the near ultraviolet. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
Ooh, good one doc.
Boy, who can argue w/ that.
Again doc, this is completely consistent w/ a created biology that is accumulating DNA errors and is in decline.
Again, no unique support for evolution there.
As usual, you haven't been paying attention so don't be frightened. It's not scary.
I am not claiming any conspiracy. As I have previously explained, it is the 'a priori' requirement of *naturalism* that limits the ability of science to recognize a supernatural creator.
It is a requirment of 'science' and therefore a limit that would *guarantee* a wrong answer *if* the universe and life *were* supernaturally created.
Since that is the very point in question, it is irrational for evo believers to *require* a 'natural' proof of a 'supernatural' act.
Don't worry. It's a logic thing and most evos don't use logic. They use credulity.
If you were paying attention, you would remember that we were discussing this issue in the context of leg development.
Gene duplication was offered as the solution for evolutionary 'leg development'. In that context, all that has been observed are freaks.
This is so far from polyploidy or imaginary duplications that supposedly happened 100 million years ago as to be totally irrelevant.
But, having a short attention span is what evos count on. Otherwise they can't play their games.
It's imaginary man. Sure there's rationale. But it's based on the 'a priori' assumption that evolution happened.
The hand-waving is being done by the proponents of the unobserved gene duplication event.
I suggest you investigate the methods used to infer a non-existent history before you credulously accept a naturalistic explanation that is only true because it is required by definition.
You understand that?
Actually, there is more evidence of evo redefinition, but of course, you don't want to discuss that.
The fact remains, evidence is not interpretation, it is facts. Anyone who claims otherwise is hiding the fact that they are interpreting facts and presenting it as evidence.
No, you have various structures. Just like the coelacanth was proposed as an intermediary fish that was developing legs until we found that they actually live in very deep water and are in no way 'developing legs'.
Swim bladders are not developing into lungs. Evos always caveat that w/ the claim that evolution happens to slowly to observe in person and too quickly to be preserved in the fossil 'record'.
Whales are mammals, so it's no great stretch to imagine that they developed from land mammals if your 'a priori' assumption is that mammals 'evolved' on land. If we come to believe that mammals 'evolved' in the sea and movded to land, do you think it will falsify evolution? Heck no.
Supposedly you have fins developing into legs and legs developing into fins. How convenient to have it both ways and be able to make any claim whatsoever.
You see what you want to see. It's purely in your mind.
Evolution is unfalsifiable.
Are you claiming that Chihuahuas and Great Danes are not the same species? A male chihuahua can certainly fertilize a female Great Dane. They are interfertile and are the same species.
What this shows you is the extreme morphological variability that exists in a single species. This is why the fossil 'record' is imposed by the mind of man. With that kind of variability, you cannot say what came from what based on fossils. It's purely guesswork.
That's why we had the 'brontosaurus' fallacy for so long.
Now WHO could disagree with that? The utility of BS to the CRIDers cannot be overstated.
Ahh, good, now we're getting into specifics.
In your model organism of choice, name a specific gene associated with leg development that, when duplicated or up/down regulated, results in a "freak." I'm assuming you must know one, or have read about one, to have such a strong opinion on the subject.
This way, we'll hopefully get a clearer picture of what a "freak" is.
Secondly, my original question still applies. Independent of gene product (though specifically in the family of genes associated with leg development, but you will need to clearly specify which genes are in this family), why is an arbitrary gene duplication event deleterious to the individual?
BS placemarker
I'm skeptical. a 4 pound, 6 inches tall dog mounting a 180 lb, 35 in. tall bitch?
It was good of the creationists to straighten that one out for us.
It is straightened out now, isn't it? You do accept the science that straightened it out, don't you?
This explains alot, animals can see the UV but bad drivers can't see other S UV's
Simply show an organism where a gene duplication or regulatory mutation did not produce a 'freak'. We can discuss fitness 'advantages' from there.
Should be relatively simple, if evolution is true.
Precisely correct!
The similarities between Eukaryote organisms are exactly what gives credibility to the TOE!
On the other hand, the distinctions between them are arguably what gives credibility to the IDers and their reasonable position, and justifiable grievances concerning the outrageous ignorance of some former ambulance chasing now hack judges, et al.
Judges with completely bogus rationalizations for their pronouncements, and really big gavels.
Sigmund Freud ought to get a shot at those pinheads who wear their penis in front of them while us Bourgeoisie are compelled to stand at their presence.
Yeah, wearing judge robes, obviously intended to hide the fact that they have little dicks. But us of the great unwashed are supposed to think that it is the other way around!
I learned all this stuff back in a different millennium because I watched a lot of Star Trek, and a few views of the truly great movie makers who are quite dead now, but not quite yet forgotten.
Well, I had a library card too.
I do the best that I can as a lowly high school drop out.
Sophistication is not my forte.
I just read a lot.
It's not the ones that science has 'straightened out' that concern me. It's the ones they haven't that are the concern.
And, with a commitment to naturalism, we can be sure that any mistakes will be replaced with a 'less obvious' mistake until that too becomes obvious, then replaced with yet another 'less obvious' mistake ad infinitum.
Meanwhile, the little evos go happily along believing that each mistake is truth.
You lost the point.
You ignore the main point, which was that the extreme morphological variation within a species (and both Chihuahuas and Great Danes are canis familiaris) makes constructing a phylogeny from the fossil 'record' an absurdity. The mechanics of such a fertilization are irrelevant.
If Chihuahuas and Great Danes are not both canis familiaris, then show it. Otherwise, your feigned skepticism is just evo irrelevancy double-talk.
Nice try.
I joined this conversation because you made the specific claim that a duplication or change in regulation of "leg development" genes will result in a "freak," and that this has been observed.
Do you have a specific example of this or do you not?
Do you have a logical biochemical argument for this or do you not?
Can you clearly define which genes are included in the family of "leg development genes?"
Can you clearly define as it pertains to ecology the term "freak?"
Are you avoiding specific answers to my questions because it is far easier to weasel out of ignorant generalizations and subjective nonsense, as opposed to actually discussing science?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.