Challenge to Evolutionsts

[sandy whitelinger]

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

And the proof that these were mutations was found where?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What other assumption should we use? That the genes were just 'created' differently? Why are they so similar between species then?

I never said it was an unreasonable (boy, you guys are touchy and ready to make assumptions about anything) assumption but stop trying to masquerade it as something other than an assumption.

 

[UnTheist]

Blah,blah,blah,blah....

That sums up your argument well.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That sums up your argument well.

Oooooh, you.....If you're soooo smart refute it.

 

[rojse]

It does not do anyone credit in calling eachother names or dismissing their arguments without explanation.

The evidence of the mutation would have come through a study of the DNA of the bats, then changing the FOXP2 gene to the mutation that bats have in the mice to see the result.

 

[meogi]

I never said it was an unreasonable (boy, you guys are touchy and ready to make assumptions about anything) assumption but stop trying to masquerade it as something other than an assumption.

If it's not unreasonable, then why ignore it? (If that's even what you're doing?) Everything is an assumption, it's reason that makes them valid or not.

If you're not proposing an alternate assumption, why are you arguing against a reasonable one?

I don't intend to sound testy (I understand how it seems very "us against them" when it comes to worldviews), but if the problem is our basic assumptions (theistic vs. natural worldview) then the whole issue becomes a moot point. If you are unable to accept the basic assumptions of the opposing view, then understanding it is unacheivable.

So, I'm not attacking you or your belief system; I'm trying to understand it by figuring out how 'God did it' fits what is seen in the real world. And why it should be as valid as a mechanism that also fits, but is observable, repeatable, testable, and can make predictions?

 

[painted wolf]

And the proof that these were mutations was found where?

one more time.... simply put.
They tested 13 species of bats... not all of the bats have the exact same form of FOXP2 (MUTATIONS), they used the mutations on the FOXP2 to traise the evolutionary history of FOXP2 in the bats.
They also tested a bunch of other animals to show the development of FOXP2 in bats closest relations and back into reptiles.

Alignments revealed that bats show unparalleled numbers of non-synonymous changes compared with other eutherian mammals, (figure 1 and table S2 and S3). An analysis of polymorphic sites in 22 sequences of non-bat eutherian mammals revealed a total number of 365 synonymous changes and 20 non-synonymous changes. By comparison, nearly half the number of bat sequences revealed 385 synonymous changes and more than double (44) the number of non-synonymous changes. We also found significantly greater levels of divergence among bats than among other eutherian mammals at both non-synonymous (mean number of pairwise non-synonymous differences = 13.3 versus 4.3, respectively; Kolmogorov-Smirnov test = 0.88, P<0.001) and synonymous sites (mean number of pairwise synonymous differences = 99.4 versus = 78.7, respectively; Kolmogorov-Smirnov test = 0.58, P<0.001) (figure 2). The distribution of non-synonymous changes among bats was not uniform along the gene but instead showed peaks around the coding exons 7 and 17 (figure 3).

The methionine to isoleucine substitution (M637I) in Hipposideros has also arisen independently in the yangochiropteran species Pteronotus parnellii but not in its congeners P. quadridens or P. macleayii. It is therefore interesting that P. parnellii is the only species of non-rhinolophoid bat to have evolved Doppler-shift compensation in echolocation, a feature that it shares with the genus Hipposideros. A striking example of rapid FoxP2 evolution is that of the yangochiropteran genus Nycteris, which, unlike its closest surveyed relatives, shows independent evolution of nasal emission, multi-harmonic call structure and prey location by passive listening [38], [64]. Nycteris also shows the highest rate of non-synonymous change at exon 17 of all species surveyed, differing from both the mammalian consensus and its closest relative by eight amino acids (V678A, A680T, T692A, E698A, L699F, D701E, I705E, L710S; table S4). Prior to this study, data on FoxP2 in bats was limited to a partial sequence of exon 7 in a single individual (Tadarida sp., family Molossidae) [3], [4]. Two amino acid differences at exon 7 (A307V and L292S) between the published Tadarida sequence and its close relative Chaerephon plicata (family Molossidae) further highlight the high degree of non-synonymous diversity in this order.

wa:do

 

[sandy whitelinger]

one more time.... simply put.
They tested 13 species of bats... not all of the bats have the exact same form of FOXP2 (MUTATIONS), they used the mutations on the FOXP2 to traise the evolutionary history of FOXP2 in the bats.
They also tested a bunch of other animals to show the development of FOXP2 in bats closest relations and back into reptiles.



wa:do

Very good, you managed to give an answer without trying to slur me personally. I commend you. Keep up the good work.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If it's not unreasonable, then why ignore it? (If that's even what you're doing?) Everything is an assumption, it's reason that makes them valid or not.

If you're not proposing an alternate assumption, why are you arguing against a reasonable one?

I don't intend to sound testy (I understand how it seems very "us against them" when it comes to worldviews), but if the problem is our basic assumptions (theistic vs. natural worldview) then the whole issue becomes a moot point. If you are unable to accept the basic assumptions of the opposing view, then understanding it is unacheivable.

So, I'm not attacking you or your belief system; I'm trying to understand it by figuring out how 'God did it' fits what is seen in the real world. And why it should be as valid as a mechanism that also fits, but is observable, repeatable, testable, and can make predictions?

It would seem simple to me when creating organisms to use something that works, such as this fox gene, in more than one species. A simple example would be that the same concept of a motor runs the windsheild wipers on many differt syles and makes of cars. Why reinvent the wheel for every occasion?

 

[meogi]

It would seem simple to me when creating organisms to use something that works, such as this fox gene, in more than one species. A simple example would be that the same concept of a motor runs the windsheild wipers on many differt syles and makes of cars. Why reinvent the wheel for every occasion?

Fine, but would you agree that the creator is being somewhat deceptive by using a process so ultimately similar to one that happens naturally, and has been observed? (Mutation)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Fine, but would you agree that the creator is being somewhat deceptive by using a process so ultimately similar to one that happens naturally, and has been observed? (Mutation)

Precisely! Well said ...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Fine, but would you agree that the creator is being somewhat deceptive by using a process so ultimately similar to one that happens naturally, and has been observed? (Mutation)

Nope. Not when the creator created nature. In one respect nature has been in decline since the fall. That mutations should occur could easily be associated with that decline.

 

[camanintx]

In one respect nature has been in decline since the fall.

And which respect would that be?

 

[Willamena]

Nope. Not when the creator created nature. In one respect nature has been in decline since the fall. That mutations should occur could easily be associated with that decline.

God created it to decline?

 

[Smoke]

God created it to decline?

Don't be silly. It's just that God's plans were foiled by those wascally humans. Why do you think he was so touchy about the Tree of Life and the Tower of Babel? There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

 

[doppelganger]

There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Childrens can learn. That's why in Texas we also often say, " Families is where our nation finds hope . . . Where our wings take dream."

 

[painted wolf]

Nope. Not when the creator created nature. In one respect nature has been in decline since the fall. That mutations should occur could easily be associated with that decline.

Are you suggesting that a beneficial mutation is a decline?

wa:do

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And which respect would that be?

The breakdown of genes.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

God created it to decline?

That came after the fall of Adam. The Earth (including the ecosystem) was cursed after creation.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Are you suggesting that a beneficial mutation is a decline?

wa:do

No, mutations themselves.