-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge to Evolutionsts
- Thread starter supersport
- Start date
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
or, if you're going to argue science, you might want to know some first. 
Also if you ask to "see the research" you'll want to be able to actually read it.
anyway, in layman's terms...
FOXP2 is the gene responsible for coordinating sound production and movements of the mouth. Experiments done with mice show that knocking out FOXP2 stops them from being able to communicate with ultrasonic sounds. (thus making them effectively mute)
Humans have a particular mutation of FOXP2 that allows us to form complex words. Humans with a misprint of the FOXP2 gene can't speak properly if at all.
Bats have a mutation of FOXP2 as well, though their mutation is on a different part of the gene. Knowing how FOXP2 works it makes it clear that this mutation is key in the bats eccolocation.
Whales and dolphins also have another mutation of FOXP2 that gives them sonar.
What this means is that a simple mutation of the FOXP2 gene is key to the development of eccolocation in bats. Further studies found that tracing the mutation showed how different bats were related to one another, and this relationship was much more complex than simply grouping them by 'kind'. ie, big bats and little bats (fruit bats and insect eating bats)
This a very quick and dirty run down of the basic reserch done. I'm sorry I don't have much time to give you a longer explanation... its exam time so I have a lot of studying to do.
wa:do
Also if you ask to "see the research" you'll want to be able to actually read it.
anyway, in layman's terms...
FOXP2 is the gene responsible for coordinating sound production and movements of the mouth. Experiments done with mice show that knocking out FOXP2 stops them from being able to communicate with ultrasonic sounds. (thus making them effectively mute)
Humans have a particular mutation of FOXP2 that allows us to form complex words. Humans with a misprint of the FOXP2 gene can't speak properly if at all.
Bats have a mutation of FOXP2 as well, though their mutation is on a different part of the gene. Knowing how FOXP2 works it makes it clear that this mutation is key in the bats eccolocation.
Whales and dolphins also have another mutation of FOXP2 that gives them sonar.
What this means is that a simple mutation of the FOXP2 gene is key to the development of eccolocation in bats. Further studies found that tracing the mutation showed how different bats were related to one another, and this relationship was much more complex than simply grouping them by 'kind'. ie, big bats and little bats (fruit bats and insect eating bats)
This a very quick and dirty run down of the basic reserch done. I'm sorry I don't have much time to give you a longer explanation... its exam time so I have a lot of studying to do.
wa:do
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I never said I couldn't read it. It's just so...sooooo...soooooooo.....yawn!!!!!....BORING.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Boring but important.
If you argue there isn't any evidence of evolution simply because the evidence is "boring", you don't have much a foundation for an argument.
I find the Bible very boring, I read it anyway. I find Chemistry math tedious but I have to do it to understand how it works.
wa:do
If you argue there isn't any evidence of evolution simply because the evidence is "boring", you don't have much a foundation for an argument.
I find the Bible very boring, I read it anyway. I find Chemistry math tedious but I have to do it to understand how it works.
wa:do
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Is there any other proof that these are mutaions other than the fact that they are so similar or is it assumed they are mutations because they are so similar?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
FOXP2 is found from at least fish up through us. It is a shared gene.
The mutations can be traced backward through the tree of life.
Are the genes that you have similer to your parents (and your great, great, great grandparents) by inheritance or coincidence?
wa:do
The mutations can be traced backward through the tree of life.
Are the genes that you have similer to your parents (and your great, great, great grandparents) by inheritance or coincidence?
wa:do
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
As I though, it is assumed to be so with out definitive proof.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
we can also back count the mutations as they happened.
Two FOXP3 mutations seperate us from Chimpanzees, four from Mice and so on.
Mitochondrial DNA can also clock this mutational rate of change.
Again, learning some basics about science and the scientific method is useful when you want to argue science. Simply dismissing it isn't a viable debate method.
wa:do
Two FOXP3 mutations seperate us from Chimpanzees, four from Mice and so on.
Mitochondrial DNA can also clock this mutational rate of change.
Again, learning some basics about science and the scientific method is useful when you want to argue science. Simply dismissing it isn't a viable debate method.
wa:do
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I haven't dismissed it, only pointed out an assumption that lead to a conclusion.we can also back count the mutations as they happened.
Two FOXP3 mutations seperate us from Chimpanzees, four from Mice and so on.
Mitochondrial DNA can also clock this mutational rate of change.
Again, learning some basics about science and the scientific method is useful when you want to argue science. Simply dismissing it isn't a viable debate method.
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
no evidence lead to the conclusion.
Unless your talking about your assumption that there isn't any evidence?
wa:do
Unless your talking about your assumption that there isn't any evidence?
wa:do
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Acctually it was an assumption that lead to the conclusion. the assumptionwas that the gene mutated where there is no evidence of a mutation occurring only there being two different genes. The conclusion based on the assumption is found in the title of the article offered, "Accelerated FoxP2 Evolution in Echolocating Bats."
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Its the SAME gene. FOXP2.
I'm not going to post the whole artical, but the only assumptions are yours.
Assumptions based on ignorance of science and the scientific method, based on an unwillingness to look at the evidence.
Mystical trans-dimentional space windows are beliveable but testable verifyable genetic information isn't?
If you are going to agrue science supports this or doesn't support that, then please for sake of us all learn some science.
wa:do
I'm not going to post the whole artical, but the only assumptions are yours.
Assumptions based on ignorance of science and the scientific method, based on an unwillingness to look at the evidence.
Mystical trans-dimentional space windows are beliveable but testable verifyable genetic information isn't?
If you are going to agrue science supports this or doesn't support that, then please for sake of us all learn some science.
wa:do
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Yet from the same article, "Observations that FOXP2 orthologues show almost no variation across distantly related species of reptile, bird and mammal ...has led to speculation that recent evolutionary changes in FOXP2 might be related to the emergence of language.
Now where is the proof, without assumption, of the evolutionary change. Now, for the sake of us all, please learn to read.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
nice cherry pick, now read the whole thing.
its easy to cherry pick things to make them sound how you want, but the introduction simply sets up the experiment that provides the evidence to support the hypothosis.
If you knew anything about science and how scientific papers worked you would know this.
The introduction sets up the question to be addressed by the experament. Nothing more.
Try reading the rest of the article rather than simply looking for things you can twist around with creative editing.
wa:do
its easy to cherry pick things to make them sound how you want, but the introduction simply sets up the experiment that provides the evidence to support the hypothosis.
If you knew anything about science and how scientific papers worked you would know this.
The introduction sets up the question to be addressed by the experament. Nothing more.
Try reading the rest of the article rather than simply looking for things you can twist around with creative editing.
wa:do
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Ok, now save me the agony of cherry picking this dry report, What is the hypothesis? Oh by the way throw in a more few slurs about my intellect as well. I'm still not belittled enough to find that humility I so justly deserve today.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
That mutations of FOXP2 are responcible for eccolocation in bats.
Post 113 covers some of the evidence to support the hypothosis listed in the paper.
wa:do
Post 113 covers some of the evidence to support the hypothosis listed in the paper.
wa:do
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
The simple solution to that is not to debate things you aren't interested in enough to bother to take the time to understand first.
meogi
Well-Known Member
What other assumption should we use? That the genes were just 'created' differently? Why are they so similar between species then?sandy whitelinger said:
If you're going to accept the idea that a supernatural entity is tweaking with DNA, then fine, believe that. But please don't suggest that mutation doesn't work also, especially when it has mounds of evidence supporting it. Unless of course the mutations are being tweaked in real time by the entity... purposfully done to mislead the scientific community!
Hell, with creationists being labeled as conspiracy theorists, I think I'll start my own evolutionist conspiracy theory against the supernatural entity! It's out to trick us guys, watch out!
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Blah,blah,blah,blah....doppelgänger;961814 said:The simple solution to that is not to debate things you aren't interested in enough to bother to take the time to understand first.