Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?

[One Eyed Jack]

LOL, If mum and dad bird have 2 inch beaks and baby bird has a 3 inch beak is that evidence of a mutation?

It could be. Or it could just be the expression of a recessive gene that mum and dad bird had.

 

[Stripe]

That's what I would think.

 

[ThePhy]

Are you saying that in all the unused parts of DNA there are 'procedures' that code for body parts?

Not all parts, but examination of some segments of "junk DNA" has shown nucleotide sequences that are active parts of other organisms DNA, and sequences that are almost perfect duplicates of other areas of DNA.

 

[PaulMcNabb]

As for it being a copying error, so what? Unless you are willing to say that no copying error can ever add information, this is a red herring. I suspect a few of the TOL crowd are conversant with computer languages. In my case, with a bit of review I suspect I could still do a fair job of programming in IBM 1620 assembly language (if you don’t know what an IBM 1620 is, look it up. That will put a time frame on when I started with computers. Have you ever programmed in GOTRAN, or FORTTOGO, very early implementations of FORTRAN? How about PACTOLUS, a language I haven’t used for many years? Bottom line, I know where the on-off switch is on computers.

Paul's IBM 1620 page

And I thought I was the only one...

 

[laughsoutloud]

They're the mechanisms of birth-defects.
...
I don't doubt that at all, in many cases. Trisomy 21 is just one such genetic defect.

So, to be clear, your argument is that random mutation results in birth defects, but never in anything positive?

Would you grant that the sickle cell mutation seems to be mixed? That it confirms greater immunity to malaria in return for a shorter life?

And this example?

A single clone of E. coli was cultured at 37 C (that is 37 degrees Celsius) for 2000 generations. A single clone was then extracted from this population and divided into replicates that were then cultured at either 32 C , 37 C, or 42 C for a total of another 2000 generations. Adaptation of the new lines was periodically measured by competing these selection lines against the ancestor population. By the end of the experiment, the lines cultured at 32 C were shown to be 10% fitter that the ancestor population (at 32 C), and the line cultured at 42 C was shown to be 20% more fit than the ancestor population. The replicate line that was cultured at 37 C showed little improvement over the ancestral line.

Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30.

 

[Johnny]

I hope you are aware that improvements by random changes to computer programs has been tried with surprising success.

Consistently, or just occasionally? In any case, that's an interesting topic, and I wouldn't mind seeing some examples if you had any.

I almost brought the topic of genetic programming up earlier when computer code was first mentioned, but since I'm not directly involved in the conversation I decided not to. However, this is the perfect entry point to point out an interesting resource. You can search google/your favorite information collection for the topic "genetic programming" and come up with a myriad of wonderful resources on the topic. Here's wikipedia's article on genetic programming .

Genetic programming (GP) is an evolutionary algorithm based methodology inspired by biological evolution to find computer programs that perform a user-defined task. It is a specialization of genetic algorithms where each individual is a computer program. Therefore it is a machine learning technique used to optimize a population of computer programs according to a fitness landscape determined by a program's ability to perform a given computational task.

Another interesting resource is genetic-programming.com's list of human competitive results, including "15 instances where genetic programming has created an entity that either infringes or duplicates the functionality of a previously patented 20th-century invention, 6 instances where genetic programming has done the same with respect to a 21st-centry invention, and 2 instances where genetic programming has created a patentable new invention."

 

[Emanresu56]

LOL, If mum and dad bird have 2 inch beaks and baby bird has a 3 inch beak is that evidence of a mutation?

Why don't you quit squawking this rubbish? It's a disgusting representation of evolution.

 

[griffinsavard]

Why don't you quit squawking this rubbish? It's a disgusting representation of evolution.

*Charles Darwin explains how the "monstrous whale" originated:

"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country. I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859; 1984 edition ), p. 184. Evolution-facts.org

arty: :dunce: :bang: :down: :rain: :loser: :nono:

 

[laughsoutloud]

*Charles Darwin explains how the "monstrous whale" originated:

"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country. I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859; 1984 edition ), p. 184. Evolution-facts.org

arty: :dunce: :bang: :down: :rain: :loser: :nono:

And you are bringing this up because?

The current understanding is pretty wild

Some details remain fuzzy and under investigation. But we know for certain that this back-to-the-water evolution did occur, thanks to a profusion of intermediate fossils that have been uncovered over the past two decades.

In 1978, paleontologist Phil Gingerich discovered a 52-million-year-old skull in Pakistan that resembled fossils of creodonts -- wolf-sized carnivores that lived between 60 and 37 million years ago, in the early Eocene epoch. But the skull also had characteristics in common with the Archaeocetes, the oldest known whales. The new bones, dubbed Pakicetus, proved to have key features that were transitional between terrestrial mammals and the earliest true whales. One of the most interesting was the ear region of the skull. In whales, it is extensively modified for directional hearing underwater. In Pakicetus, the ear region is intermediate between that of terrestrial and fully aquatic animals.

Another, slightly more recent form, called Ambulocetus, was an amphibious animal. Its forelimbs were equipped with fingers and small hooves. The hind feet of Ambulocetus, however, were clearly adapted for swimming. Functional analysis of its skeleton shows that it could get around effectively on land and could swim by pushing back with its hind feet and undulating its tail, as otters do today.

Rhodocetus shows evidence of an increasingly marine lifestyle. Its neck vertebrae are shorter, giving it a less flexible, more stable neck -- an adaptation for swimming also seen in other aquatic animals such as sea cows, and in an extreme form in modern whales. The ear region of its skull is more specialized for underwater hearing. And its legs are disengaged from its pelvis, symbolizing the severance of the connection to land locomotion.

By 40 million years ago, Basilosaurus -- clearly an animal fully adapted to an aquatic environment -- was swimming the ancient seas, propelled by its sturdy flippers and long, flexible body. Yet Basilosaurus still retained small, weak hind legs -- baggage from its evolutionary past -- even though it could not walk on land.

None of these animals is necessarily a direct ancestor of the whales we know today; they may be side branches of the family tree. But the important thing is that each fossil whale shares new, whale-like features with the whales we know today, and in the fossil record, we can observe the gradual accumulation of these aquatic adaptations in the lineage that led to modern whales.

As evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin points out, "In one sense, evolution didn't invent anything new with whales. It was just tinkering with land mammals. It's using the old to make the new."

By the way, how did whales fit on the ark, since they died along with every other air-breathing creature?

Gen 6:17 "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it."

 

[icilian fenner]

*Charles Darwin explains how the "monstrous whale" originated:

"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country. I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859; 1984 edition ), p. 184. Evolution-facts.org

arty: :dunce: :bang: :down: :rain: :loser: :nono:

So some of his theorising has since been shown to be countary to understanding, given our discovery of more evidence pertaining to what happened. That particular speculation may be ridiculous given what we now understand, but that does not discredit the general mechanism he put forth. At all, in fact.

 

[griffinsavard]

And you are bringing this up because?

The current understanding is pretty wild


By the way, how did whales fit on the ark, since they died along with every other air-breathing creature?

Gen 6:17 "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it."

First, to believe that the bear evolved into the whale is an absurdity. Do you realize the changes that would have to take place for this to happen? Why do we retain the bear and the whale if evolution is what actually made life.

Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God...

Breath of life refers to all creatures. But if God saved the land animals like the Bible said, then wouldn't He also reserve the sea animals? They wouldn't have to be on the boat to be saved. Maybe the phrase was just refering to the land animals? I know how you interpret Scripture so I don't see myself agreeing with ya! :crackup:

 

[griffinsavard]

So some of his theorising has since been shown to be countary to understanding, given our discovery of more evidence pertaining to what happened. That particular speculation may be ridiculous given what we now understand, but that does not discredit the general mechanism he put forth. At all, in fact.

The guy was a loser who flunked school and went off to work for his family. While on the Beagle he dreamed up some science fiction idea of how life began and changed. He was neither a scientist or credible in any degree. Entered into witchcraft rituals while on his trip and came back with his demonic doctrine: "Origins of Species of natural selction"

Racist speculator is what Charles 'ape man' Darwin was...:loser:

 

[Real Sorceror]

First, to believe that the bear evolved into the whale is an absurdity.

Humans, bears, and whales all evolved from fish. If you stop thinking about the millions of years and hundreds of thousands of transition species, then that statement might sound absurd.

Whats really absurd is taking things on faith and making no attempt to back them up with material and scientific evidence.

Do you realize the changes that would have to take place for this to happen?

Yes. Yes we do.

Why do we retain the bear and the whale if evolution is what actually made life.

There are different species of bear, and within a single species there are multiple populations spread out over a wide area. They won't all evolve exactly the same way. One population could change in a completely different direction than another, while a third may stay relatively the same for hundreds of thousands of years. And evolution didn't "make" life. Evolution requires life to already exist. Whether it was through some natural accident, alien seeding, or divine mandate, we don't know where life came from. And frankly, the origin of life doesn't stop evolution from working.

Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God...

Breath of life refers to all creatures. But if God saved the land animals like the Bible said, then wouldn't He also reserve the sea animals? They wouldn't have to be on the boat to be saved. Maybe the phrase was just refering to the land animals? I know how you interpret Scripture so I don't see myself agreeing with ya! :crackup:

I'm all ears. Prove that magic exists. Prove that things can occur through supernatural means. Prove that something was created without pre-existing matter. Until you do so, I will continue to believe that things can only occur via natural means

 

[Real Sorceror]

The guy was a loser who flunked school and went off to work for his family. While on the Beagle he dreamed up some science fiction idea of how life began and changed. He was neither a scientist or credible in any degree. Entered into witchcraft rituals while on his trip and came back with his demonic doctrine: "Origins of Species of natural selction"

Racist speculator is what Charles 'ape man' Darwin was...:loser:

Cool. You do realize that we've discovered one or two things since his original hypothesis, right?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Hey evolutionists I have a question. Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs? I was watching some show tonight on the Discovery Channel and it was about all the ways the earth could/might come to an end. One of the "ways" they described was if a large comet struck the earth which could wipe out all life on earth, and they repeatedly discussed the comet that supposedly wiped out all the dinosaurs millions of years ago. They stated that only microscopic life could have survived such an event.

Therefore do they believe that the life we see today basically re-evolved after this alleged comet? Or was this show simply overstating the case? I had never heard such a thing before and it sounds a bit ridiculous.

To G_d EVERYTHING man (flesh) says is ridiculous (and futile)...
G_d LAUGHS at mankind's FOOLISHNESS (Psalm 2 ? )
and
only a few will ever know the truth. (most of you never will)

 

[PlastikBuddha]

First, to believe that the bear evolved into the whale is an absurdity.

He didn't say it did. He said that if water-bourne insects became an easy and plentiful enough food supply he could envision bears making adaptations that would essentially make them like whales. It's a hypothetical.

Do you realize the changes that would have to take place for this to happen?

Not only do we realize it we have fossil evidence of the whale's own evolution to show how it could conceivably happen. That it is unlikely to do so since bears do just fine with their usual diet doesn't mean the fundamental principle doesn't hold.

Why do we retain the bear and the whale if evolution is what actually made life.

:squint:
Because they fill different (very different) ecological niches. They are hardly competing with one another...

 

[Stripe]

Why don't you quit squawking this rubbish? It's a disgusting representation of evolution.

It was a simple question with a simple answer.

 

[laughsoutloud]

First, to believe that the bear evolved into the whale is an absurdity. Do you realize the changes that would have to take place for this to happen? Why do we retain the bear and the whale if evolution is what actually made life.

Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God...

Breath of life refers to all creatures. But if God saved the land animals like the Bible said, then wouldn't He also reserve the sea animals? They wouldn't have to be on the boat to be saved. Maybe the phrase was just refering to the land animals? I know how you interpret Scripture so I don't see myself agreeing with ya! :crackup:

You should read the link I provided, it tells a pretty interesting journey. If an isolated population changes over time to some other species, there is no reason to expect that other populations of the original creature would have to go extinct. Think of it as a shoot off of a branch - the original branch doesn't die because the branch generates a shoot.

Really amazing changes have taken place - over very long periods of time.

The interesting that about Darwin (though you are wrong about him) is that it does not matter - it was his idea that had such a powerful explanatory power, not his resume. As we collect more evidence, the idea he had is confirmed, modified, expanded. His is honored for having the idea, but evolution stands on its own, the result of thousands of people looking at the evidence. It is not about Darwin.

I find it interesting that you will accept that the ark is an historical event, even though we have NO evidence for it, and the idea that all living creatures could have been saved from a flood of that magnitude in a 450 foot wooden boat is not credible - while denying evolution, an idea that is so powerful and well documented that even creationists agree it exists (by the way, the notion of kinds-to-species evolving in just a few hundred years after the flood is a feat of evolution that strains the credulity of mainstream evolutionists).

So you deny that evolution could have produced the living creatures we see around us in billions of years, but eagerly affirm that evolution can generate thousands of specides from a few kinds in a few hundred years.

Not to mention that no whales would have survived the flood outside the ark, and no whale would have survived on the ark...

Gen 6:17 indicates that the authors of the story didn't know that whales (or seals, manatees, sea lions, dolphins etc) were mammals - so under the ban, but also unable to survive outside the ark.

 

[icilian fenner]

The guy was a loser who flunked school and went off to work for his family. While on the Beagle he dreamed up some science fiction idea of how life began and changed. He was neither a scientist or credible in any degree. Entered into witchcraft rituals while on his trip and came back with his demonic doctrine: "Origins of Species of natural selction"

Racist speculator is what Charles 'ape man' Darwin was...:loser:

Newton was a alchemist. It does not diminish whatsoever from his valid scientific findings. Irrespective of whatever else Darwin did, if what he hypothosised is passing muster with the scientific community by and large, then it must be being considered VALID by professional and practicing scientists.

If the idea had no basis, then this 'demonic doctrine' would have disappeared from the annals of scientific thought.

All you can do is ad hom and baulk at the idea, huh?

 

[Poly]

To G_d EVERYTHING man (flesh) says is ridiculous (and futile)...
G_d LAUGHS at mankind's FOOLISHNESS (Psalm 2 ? )
and
only a few will ever know the truth. (most of you never will)

Who is G_d? I see this name ever so often and not only do I wonder who this is but I also wonder how in the world is it pronounced?

Everytime I try to say it, it always comes out, "Gudu". Those short little "u" vowels keep slipping in there no matter how hard I try to say it without them. I even try to say it real fast so those nasty vowels won't get in the way but it only comes out an even quicker "Gudu".