Evolution My ToE

[tas8831]

So with say, the classic peppered moth example. Whether a moth is light or dark colored is genetically based. So what is selection (bird predation) acting on? Is it acting on the color, or is it acting on the genes that determine the color?

I don't work in evolutionary biology circles, so I don't really know what the state of this "debate" is, or even if it's still debated. (@tas8831 might know) To me I think it's kind of a "six of one, half a dozen of another" thing, where it's not really all that consequential in application. In my work, we deal with selective pressures and such all the time, and we've never argued over whether selection is acting on the trait or the genetics.

You are correct - "six of one, half a dozen of another" . I have seen people write one thing or the other, but it seems clear to me that it is the physical/physiological characteristics that selection is actually working on, and by default (extension?), the underlying genetics that produce them will be affected.

 

[ecco]

Not sure why you interject the spirit world into your worshipful rant about physical science.

It's not about my spiritual rant. If you had been capable of reading and understanding, you would have realized that it is a creation myth. One of thousands. This particular one is from North American Cherokees whereas yours is from Middle Eastern Jews. Theirs is just as viable and provable as yours.

Your denial of history and the bible and the spiritual coupled with your demonstrated and repeated total failure to be able to support the nature you claim existed on earth in the past has rendered your so called science beliefs null and void.

In order to not overburden you, I'll address one at a time.

Please show where I have denied history. You won't because you can't because I didn't. So, that is one untruthful comment on your part.

What do you mean when you say I have denied the Bible? I have quoted from the Bible so, clearly, I do not deny it's existence. So, that is another untruthful comment on your part.

What do you mean that I deny "the spiritual"? When making accusations, you need to be specific.

The remainder of your comment is pretty much of an incoherent rant: "demonstrated and repeated total failure to be able to support the nature you claim existed on earth in the past has rendered your so called science beliefs null and void."

The science that you claim I have failed to support is supported by thousands of scientists, many of them Christian.

On the other hand, your silly notions of time and the speed of light being different in the past and your silly notions that continents like Australia zipped across the Pacific ocean are supported by no one. Not by scientists, not by Christians, not by anyone. You even admitted that some of this was made up by you in your own brain. Why would anyone take it seriously?

The fact that you believe that anyone would take these silly ideas seriously only confirms that your beliefs are based on your own inner delusional fantasies.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are correct - "six of one, half a dozen of another" . I have seen people write one thing or the other, but it seems clear to me that it is the physical/physiological characteristics that selection is actually working on, and by default (extension?), the underlying genetics that produce them will be affected.

Thanks man! I thought as much, but figured it'd be best to check in with someone more in tune with it all.

 

[dad]

It's not about my spiritual rant. If you had been capable of reading and understanding, you would have realized that it is a creation myth. One of thousands. This particular one is from North American Cherokees whereas yours is from Middle Eastern Jews. Theirs is just as viable and provable as yours.

Your attempt at waving away Scripture history for no reason whatsoever, and arbitrarily declaring whatever involves the spiritual aspect of life is noted, and dismissed.

Please show where I have denied history.

History is full of records of spirits, spirit kings, extremely long lived people and etc. Are you suggesting you accept this? If so fine, if not then you indeed deny it.

What do you mean when you say I have denied the Bible? I have quoted from the Bible so, clearly, I do not deny it's existence. So, that is another untruthful comment on your part.

Your stance is one that opposes creation as Scripture teaches, is it not?

What do you mean that I deny "the spiritual"? When making accusations, you need to be specific.

Do you accept that God is a spirit and that spiritual beings exist and that there is a spiritual component science has no ability to recognize, or not?

The science that you claim I have failed to support is supported by thousands of scientists, many of them Christian.

Except that is shown to be an empty unsupported claim. No science proves or evidences a same nature on earth in the past. Zero. If any 'christians' thought it did, the would be as mistaken as you are.

On the other hand, your silly notions of time and the speed of light being different in the past and your silly notions that continents like Australia zipped across the Pacific ocean are supported by no one.

Once again you demonstrate that you have not been discussing of comprehending my position, but merely preaching your beliefs fanatically and dishonestly. I never said light speed changed.

You even admitted that some of this was made up by you in your own brain. Why would anyone take it seriously?

Link? Hilarious baloney.

 

[nPeace]

You're confusing immunity to something like an antibiotic with immunity to a virus (as in how the vertebrate immune system works). The two are not the same.

No sir. I am not. How are they not the same, please?

With resistance to the antibiotic in the lab experiment, the whole reason we used a single-clone population and compared the genetics of the parental and evolved strains was to establish that the resistance was due to a mutation.

Okay. After reading your papers, I realize you were referring to lab experiments.
What do you assume happened?
Did the mutation pop up in the right location, and at the right time, for the right circumstances?
How is that the same as in the case of the deer acquiring various levels of immunity to parasites.

Is it possible these are mutations that occurred previously, and did not remain in their original state, due to repair, and then were used to resist invasions from foreign bodies, since that was the role of these genes previous to the errors? I hope you understand the question.

No, it doesn't work that way with bacterial resistance to antibiotics. We've known for over half a century that mutations can cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. It's the same with insects becoming resistant to pesticides. If you'd like, I can provide you all sorts of papers to read on this.

Give me one, or two, please... and please make sure it's not a mile long, like the previous two, which took me a while to read.

I'm just trying to be as helpful as I can.

Okay. I understand.
It would help, if you try not to treat this like a classroom,

and remember we are not in a Q&A forum.

No problem.


Nope, it would not be wrong to say that.

Okay.

Sure. Here ya go....

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(14)61550-0/fulltext

Here's something from the journal Nature that's more geared to laypeople: Mutation Rates and Antibiotic Resistance | Learn Science at Scitable

If you'd like more, just let me know.

Thanks for the mile and a half long papers.

 

[ecco]

Your attempt at waving away Scripture history for no reason whatsoever, and arbitrarily declaring whatever involves the spiritual aspect of life is noted, and dismissed.

Actually, you are the one waving away scriptural history. Scriptural history, as supported by the majority of biblical scholars has ascertained:

• No one knows who authored the Gospels
• No one knows how the sayings attributed to Jesus were, or could have been recorded.
• OT stories, like the Exodus, have been found to be fiction.

You ignore these findings. You think you know better than biblical scholars who are out there every day doing actual research while you sit in front of a computer posting your unsubstantiated beliefs.

History is full of records of spirits, spirit kings, extremely long lived people and etc. Are you suggesting you accept this? If so fine, if not then you indeed deny it.

I am not denying that history is full of stories. Do you believe the stories about Atlas and Jupiter and Athena and Thor? If not, why do you criticize me? The stories are there, that doesn't mean there is any truth to them.

Your stance is one that opposes creation as Scripture teaches, is it not?

Your stance is one that opposes all but one man-made mythological creation story. I know that all of them are the creations of man's imaginings. I have outgrown any childish need for magic men in the sky.

Do you accept that God is a spirit and that spiritual beings exist and that there is a spiritual component science has no ability to recognize, or not?

God, gods are the creations of man's imaginings. There is no difference between Atlas and Jupiter and Athena and Thor and your god and Shiva and Allah.

You seem to believe that spiritual things like gods and angels are real. Do you still believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny as well?

Except that is shown to be an empty unsupported claim. No science proves or evidences a same nature on earth in the past. Zero. If any 'christians' thought it did, the would be as mistaken as you are.

The fact that you put quotes around the word 'Christians' shows your utter disdain for science and all things scientific. You cannot even accept that many Christians do not share your silly fundamentalist concepts.

 

[ecco]

All emphases mine...

On the other hand, your silly notions of time and the speed of light being different in the past and your silly notions that continents like Australia zipped across the Pacific ocean are supported by no one. Not by scientists, not by Christians, not by anyone.

You even admitted that some of this was made up by you in your own brain. Why would anyone take it seriously?

Link? Hilarious baloney.

Once again you deny something that you posted. Once again I had to go back through many pages to find the comments that you deny making.

I won't do it again. The next time you deny posting something that you did post, I'll just remind you and any lurkers of...

Your inability to remember what you have said.
...and/or
Your inability to be honest about what you have said.


Let's recap...

483 pp25 Dad

No. The issue of time is in deep space, not earth, and we don't know what it is like out there right now! The speed of light is just the way light is clocked here in our area. How much time is involved is dependent on what time is like.​

441 PP 23 ecco

You have no evidence to show that nature was different in the past. However, you do have your Fundamentalist beliefs in Genesis. The only way that Genesis can be correct is if nature was different in the past.

In other words, you made up a story about nature in the past to accommodate your Fundamentalist Religious beliefs.

Of course, I don't really believe that you made up that story. I don't think you are that creative. More likely some of the bright folks over at Answers in Genesis came up with it. Probably one of their sheeples got a little antsy and started put two and two together and started to ask some embarrassing questions. His concerns were quickly addressed.

Well, son. There's no need for concern. You see, back then light traveled at a different speed than it does now.
It did? Wow! What made it change speed?
GodDidIt.
Oh. OK

When in doubt, the right answer is always GodDidIt.
​

443 PP23 Dad

Almost wish that was true, as they are in a better position to get info out to a wide audience. But alas I must take the credit for the concept.
​

So, yes. You admitted you made up the stories about the speed of light changing and about nature in the past being different.

 

[Jose Fly]

No sir. I am not. How are they not the same, please?

CLICK HERE for an overview of how the human immune system works. As you can see, it works via multiple organs and specialized blood cells. Generally, the immune system attacks and kills invading organisms like viruses and other pathogens.

CLICK HERE for an overview of antibiotic resistance in pathogens. As you can see, it works completely differently than an immune system. Antibiotic resistance works via modification of enzymes that chemically inactivate the drug, removing the drug from the cell, or some other means.

Okay. After reading your papers, I realize you were referring to lab experiments.

Not quite. The experiment I did certainly was a lab experiment, and scientists conduct such experiments to help them understand how resistance develops (so they can counter it). But resistance also happens naturally, outside of lab experiments. Basically the bacteria don't care whether they're in a petri dish or in your bloodstream....they'll behave the same either way.

What do you assume happened?
Did the mutation pop up in the right location, and at the right time, for the right circumstances?

In our experiment, that's exactly what happened, and we didn't need to assume it to be so either. That was the whole point of using a single-clone strain and comparing the genetics of the parental and evolved populations.

How is that the same as in the case of the deer acquiring various levels of immunity to parasites.

Well remember, the deer scenario is just something I made up to illustrate a point. I figured deer, wolves, and parasites were simple enough to use to convey that point (selection acting on populations).

Is it possible these are mutations that occurred previously, and did not remain in their original state, due to repair, and then were used to resist invasions from foreign bodies, since that was the role of these genes previous to the errors? I hope you understand the question.

What do you mean by "mutations that occurred previously"? How long ago are you thinking?

Give me one, or two, please... and please make sure it's not a mile long, like the previous two, which took me a while to read.

Sure, but keep in mind, this is science and if you're hoping to understand some of these subjects, it's going to take some work. I'll skip over anything related to how mutations lead to bacterial resistance to antibiotics, since that was the subject of the last two sources I gave you (if you need to read more on that, I suggest looking up some of the references in the first paper).

CLICK HERE to a host of freely-accessible papers from PNAS on the mutational basis for insecticide resistance. CLICK HERE for the Wiki page on the subject (and for more info, I suggest looking at the references and external links).

Okay. I understand.
It would help, if you try not to treat this like a classroom,

and remember we are not in a Q&A forum.

Sure. FYI, in my mind all I'm doing is answering the questions you've been asking.

Thanks for the mile and a half long papers.

You're welcome! It is a bit dense, isn't it? But again, this is a technical subject and as such takes a bit of work to understand.

 

[nPeace]

CLICK HERE for an overview of how the human immune system works. As you can see, it works via multiple organs and specialized blood cells. Generally, the immune system attacks and kills invading organisms like viruses and other pathogens.

CLICK HERE for an overview of antibiotic resistance in pathogens. As you can see, it works completely differently than an immune system. Antibiotic resistance works via modification of enzymes that chemically inactivate the drug, removing the drug from the cell, or some other means.


Not quite. The experiment I did certainly was a lab experiment, and scientists conduct such experiments to help them understand how resistance develops (so they can counter it). But resistance also happens naturally, outside of lab experiments. Basically the bacteria don't care whether they're in a petri dish or in your bloodstream....they'll behave the same either way.


In our experiment, that's exactly what happened, and we didn't need to assume it to be so either. That was the whole point of using a single-clone strain and comparing the genetics of the parental and evolved populations.


Well remember, the deer scenario is just something I made up to illustrate a point. I figured deer, wolves, and parasites were simple enough to use to convey that point (selection acting on populations).


What do you mean by "mutations that occurred previously"? How long ago are you thinking?


Sure, but keep in mind, this is science and if you're hoping to understand some of these subjects, it's going to take some work. I'll skip over anything related to how mutations lead to bacterial resistance to antibiotics, since that was the subject of the last two sources I gave you (if you need to read more on that, I suggest looking up some of the references in the first paper).

CLICK HERE to a host of freely-accessible papers from PNAS on the mutational basis for insecticide resistance. CLICK HERE for the Wiki page on the subject (and for more info, I suggest looking at the references and external links).


Sure. FYI, in my mind all I'm doing is answering the questions you've been asking.


You're welcome! It is a bit dense, isn't it? But again, this is a technical subject and as such takes a bit of work to understand.

Thanks.
I know resistance happens naturally, but I don't recall that it happens by mutations popping up to provide that resistance.
Yes bacteria reacts as it does, along with factors that that may affect it.
I'm more interested in your saying that mutations are responsible for immunity.
I'm trying to get clarity on this, in relation to your scenario, because you said... With both cases (the deer immunity to the parasite and bacterial immunity to antibiotics), the immunity stems from a mutation that gets passed down to later generations.

The papers you gave me, discussed Biofilms.
Biofilm - Wikipedia
Recent studies in 2003 discovered that the immune system supports bio-film development in the large intestine. This was supported mainly with the fact that the two most abundantly produced molecules by the immune system also support bio-film production and are associated with the bio-films developed in the gut. This is especially important because the appendix holds a mass amount of these bacterial bio-films.

So, the immune system can harbor antibiotic resistant genes also.
Yes, these genes can have mutations, but they are not always incapacitated by mutations. Some mutations are repaired... though not perfectly.
So what I am saying is, the mutation observed after is not necessarily what made the resistance possible, but the biofilms that formed... even though an error or errors occurred. Repairs are done, the genes continue to function.
Do you accept that?
If not, why not?

Don't worry, you don't have to tell me to do research, I always do extensive research, on a topic I'm discussing.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks.

You're welcome!

I know resistance happens naturally, but I don't recall that it happens by mutations popping up to provide that resistance.

It most certainly does, as illustrated directly via lab experiments and studies in natural settings.

Yes bacteria reacts as it does, along with factors that that may affect it.
I'm more interested in your saying that mutations are responsible for immunity.
I'm trying to get clarity on this, in relation to your scenario, because you said... With both cases (the deer immunity to the parasite and bacterial immunity to antibiotics), the immunity stems from a mutation that gets passed down to later generations.

What exactly do you need clarity on? Remember, the deer/wolf scenario was entirely made up to illustrate concepts regarding natural selection.

I've provided you multiple papers and other resources that all describe the same thing....immunity/resistance arising via mutations, so I guess I'm not really sure what isn't clear.

The papers you gave me, discussed Biofilms.
Biofilm - Wikipedia
Recent studies in 2003 discovered that the immune system supports bio-film development in the large intestine. This was supported mainly with the fact that the two most abundantly produced molecules by the immune system also support bio-film production and are associated with the bio-films developed in the gut. This is especially important because the appendix holds a mass amount of these bacterial bio-films.

So, the immune system can harbor antibiotic resistant genes also.
Yes, these genes can have mutations, but they are not always incapacitated by mutations. Some mutations are repaired... though not perfectly.
So what I am saying is, the mutation observed after is not necessarily what made the resistance possible, but the biofilms that formed... even though an error or errors occurred. Repairs are done, the genes continue to function.
Do you accept that?
If not, why not?

It seems fine, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject at hand, i.e., the fact of resistance arising via mutation.

Don't worry, you don't have to tell me to do research, I always do extensive research, on a topic I'm discussing.

Great! And btw, thanks for sticking around and seeing these discussions through. I've become so accustomed to people just bailing out on them, I almost forgot what it's like to not have that happen!

 

[nPeace]

You're welcome!


It most certainly does, as illustrated directly via lab experiments and studies in natural settings.


What exactly do you need clarity on? Remember, the deer/wolf scenario was entirely made up to illustrate concepts regarding natural selection.

I've provided you multiple papers and other resources that all describe the same thing....immunity arising via mutations, so I guess I'm not really sure what isn't clear.


It seems fine, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject at hand, i.e., the fact of resistance arising via mutation.


Great! And btw, thanks for sticking around and seeing these discussions through. I've become so accustomed to people just bailing out on them, I almost forgot what it's like to not have that happen!

You have given me papers.
However, the first two, don't clearly demonstrate resistance arising via mutation. I see the biofilm ndvB doing it's work in that regard.
Perhaps I missed what you saw.

The other papers you pointed to, were to me, what scientists claim. I can't argue, as I am not a scientist, but I believe there can be other explanations. I will have to research further, before I can say, I agree.
So allow me time to do so, thanks.

I think the reason you and I can talk is because we have a certain understanding, and respect. You also are willing to be challenged, or have your data, opinion, views, challenged. I'll stick around as long as we can reach a reasonable conclusion with clarity - that is, we both understand each other... even if we disagree.
Also I think there are some positive things about you... Ahem... recently , where I think we can get along in conversing at length.
Overall, you don't display the prime negative traits so common among some opponents.
I gotta watch my back though, if you know what I mean.

Edit
Hopefully @Jose Fly you are not yet responding to this.
A question... Do you believe that mutations are random, or do you believe they are directed?

 

[dad]

• No one knows who authored the Gospels
• No one knows how the sayings attributed to Jesus were, or could have been recorded.
• OT stories, like the Exodus, have been found to be fiction.

• As much as it is tempting to slay the dragons of false canards, old wives tales, shallow bible opinions, and etc...what has this little doubt fest have to do with the theory that man and all other life is here because of evolving?

I am not denying that history is full of stories. Do you believe the stories about Atlas and Jupiter and Athena and Thor? If not, why do you criticize me? The stories are there, that doesn't mean there is any truth to them.

I believe real spirits exist now and then also. Do you believe in any spirits at all?






Your stance is one that opposes all but one man-made mythological creation story. I know that all of them are the creations of man's imaginings. I have outgrown any childish need for magic men in the sky.




God, gods are the creations of man's imaginings. There is no difference between Atlas and Jupiter and Athena and Thor and your god and Shiva and Allah.

You seem to believe that spiritual things like gods and angels are real. Do you still believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny as well?



The fact that you put quotes around the word 'Christians' shows your utter disdain for science and all things scientific. You cannot even accept that many Christians do not share your silly fundamentalist concepts.[/QUOTE]

 

[dad]

483 pp25 Dad

No. The issue of time is in deep space, not earth, and we don't know what it is like out there right now! The speed of light is just the way light is clocked here in our area. How much time is involved is dependent on what time is like.​

441 PP 23 ecco

You have no evidence to show that nature was different in the past. However, you do have your Fundamentalist beliefs in Genesis. The only way that Genesis can be correct is if nature was different in the past.​

?? The issue of what time is or is not like right now in the distant universe is not related to what nature on earth was in the past. You seem to be conflating issues.

In other words, you made up a story about nature in the past to accommodate your Fundamentalist Religious beliefs.

Of course, I don't really believe that you made up that story. I don't think you are that creative. More likely some of the bright folks over at Answers in Genesis came up with it. Probably one of their sheeples got a little antsy and started put two and two together and started to ask some embarrassing questions. His concerns were quickly addressed.

I did not make up either what science knows, or what Scripture says actually. As for the split merge theory (that earth was different in nature in the far past, such as the days of Noah, yes of course I have the copyright on that)

Well, son. There's no need for concern. You see, back then light traveled at a different speed than it does now.
It did? Wow! What made it change speed?
GodDidIt.
Oh. OK

Strawman. The issue never was about what light speed in Noah's day was. If you want to talk about time remamber this rule.

What time in the far universe is like now is not known. What time was like on earth long ago is ot an issue. (unless you want to talk about how a year used to be 360 days rather than the current 365)
​

443 PP23 Dad

Almost wish that was true, as they are in a better position to get info out to a wide audience. But alas I must take the credit for the concept.
​

So, yes. You admitted you made up the stories about the speed of light changing and about nature in the past being different.

False. I am not aware that a different nature, if one existed here on earth would be much dependent on light speed?? Please explain how the strong nuclear force, gravity, etc etc etc all depend on 'the speed of light'?

Even if all we want to discuss is how time may not be the same in far space as it is in the area of the solar system, the speed of light is not really an issue. Light would simply take whatever time exists for it to take wherever it moved!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just posted these on another thread for dad, but I will post them here too. We can observe that time is the same in the distant universe:

Radioactive Elements Provide Glimpses into the Explosion of Stars

Gamma-ray line measurements from supernova explosions

Let me see if I can find a simpler version.

EDIT:

Here we go:

Imagine the Universe!

 

[dad]

I just posted these on another thread for dad, but I will post them here too. We can observe that time is the same in the distant universe:

Radioactive Elements Provide Glimpses into the Explosion of Stars

Gamma-ray line measurements from supernova explosions

Let me see if I can find a simpler version.

Just destroyed that a moment ago in another thread. Ha. (CMB thread over in science and religion area)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just destroyed that a moment ago in another thread. Ha. (CMB thread over in science and religion area)

Nope, you only demonstrated that you do not have a clue. You cannot refute that which you do not understand.

 

[dad]

Nope, you only demonstrated that you do not have a clue. You cannot refute that which you do not understand.

Yep demolished. Trounced upon. If any lurker can do more than whine, we might see some attempt to correct what was said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep demolished. Trounced upon. If any lurker can do more than whine, we might see some attempt to correct what was said.

Yes dad you demolished yourself again. Lurkers can see that I linked articles that you did not even try to understand. I have serious doubts that you could since you seem to avoid education.

 

[dad]

Yes dad you demolished yourself again. Lurkers can see that I linked articles that you did not even try to understand. I have serious doubts that you could since you seem to avoid education.

If they have half a brain they might notice that the OP is not really even addressed. That is why you spam links and cannot offer quotes from them you think apply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If they have half a brain they might notice that the OP is not really even addressed. That is why you spam links and cannot offer quotes from them you think apply.

No, if they have at least halfof a brain they can see that the OP was refuted on the first page. If they have half a brain, or less, they might believe you.