Rapid Adaptation

[Jose Fly]

Not really.

Genetics are complicated.

Time.

Evolution requires a lot of time. The lizards probably developed their changes in one generation.

Well that was stupid. And here I thought you were just scared to engage in a decent conversation, when really it's that you're incapable.

Sorry for overestimating you. :wave:

 

[Stripe]

Well that was stupid. And here I thought you were just scared to engage in a decent conversation, when really it's that you're incapable.Sorry for overestimating you. :wave:

Running away from the challenge yet again, I see.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe admits:

Creationists should not use the word "species."

He's right. It's one of the most damaging challenges to creationism. As Darwin pointed out, evolution means that there is no way to make a strict definition of "species."

If creationism were true, it would be easy, since each species was supposed to be created separately. But that's not the case. Smart creationists avoid the issue entirely, knowing that it is so damaging to their beliefs.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe admits:He's right. It's one of the most damaging challenges to creationism. As Darwin pointed out, evolution means that there is no way to make a strict definition of "species." If creationism were true, it would be easy, since each species was supposed to be created separately. But that's not the case. Smart creationists avoid the issue entirely, knowing that it is so damaging to their beliefs.

Straw-man arguments are a common evolutionary ploy.

Meanwhile, the challenge remains ignored.

 

[Jose Fly]

If creationism were true, it would be easy, since each species was supposed to be created separately.

Depends on who you ask. Creationists like 6days seem to believe that God created "kinds" that have been rapidly speciating ever since, whereas creationists like Stripe insist there is no speciation and no population ever evolves.

Maybe one day they'll figure it out. :kookoo:

 

[Stripe]

Depends on who you ask. Creationists like 6days seem to believe that God created "kinds" that have been rapidly speciating ever since, whereas creationists like Stripe insist there is no speciation and no population ever evolves.Maybe one day they'll figure it out.

Meanwhile, the challenge remains unanswered.

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW... You may be correct about the lizards changing in one generation. The DNA to code for the cecal valve likely was already in their genome since other lizards also have this.

Nope. Cecal valves turn up in a wide variety of organism, including sharks and lizards. But there is no "cecal valve" gene. No wall lizard ever had a cecal valve, and there has never been a cecal valve gene found for them.

It's a combination of genes that natural selection favored. Mutations for stronger jaws and smaller legs also modified these lizards. The creationist story that they have the same genes as the population from which they evolved is based on pretending that the genome and mDNA are the same thing.

Mitochondrial DNA tends to be more constant, and so it's a good way of finding common descent in closely-related species. But it won't tell you how the cecal valve evolved.

However, there would be an easy way for creationists to settle this. Sequence the DNA of the original population and show a cecal valve gene hiding there unexpressed.

Don't anyone hold your breath. They might not be Nobel prize winners, but they aren't that dumb.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe admits:

Creationists should not use the word "species."

Barbarian chuckles:
He's right. It's one of the most damaging challenges to creationism. As Darwin pointed out, evolution means that there is no way to make a strict definition of "species." If creationism were true, it would be easy, since each species was supposed to be created separately. But that's not the case. Smart creationists avoid the issue entirely, knowing that it is so damaging to their beliefs.

Stipe dodges:

Straw-man arguments are a common evolutionary ploy.

Stipes gets all befuddled when he realizes that his diversionary arguments actually support evolution.

Stipe, regarding his failure to show that "math that refutes evolution":

Meanwhile, the challenge remains ignored.

We know, Stipe. We know.

 

[Jose Fly]

Meanwhile, the challenge remains unanswered.

And non-existent.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe makes up a new story:

Changes to organisms can almost always be linked to a response to the environment. There is no space for random mutation and natural selection.

Sorry, that's wrong, too. Luria and Delbruck showed that changes in organisms do not happen as a response to environment. Rather, random mutations occur and natural selection tends to preserve those that help the organism survive long enough to reproduce.

The Luria–Delbrück experiment (1943) (also called the Fluctuation Test) demonstrates that in bacteria, genetic mutations arise in the absence of selection, rather than being a response to selection. Therefore, Darwin's theory of natural selection acting on random mutations applies to bacteria as well as to more complex organisms. Max Delbrück and Salvador Luria won the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in part for this work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria–Delbrück_experiment

 

[Stripe]

Nope. Cecal valves turn up in a wide variety of organism, including sharks and lizards. But there is no "cecal valve" gene. No wall lizard ever had a cecal valve, and there has never been a cecal valve gene found for them.

It's a combination of genes that natural selection favored. Mutations for stronger jaws and smaller legs also modified these lizards. The creationist story that they have the same genes as the population from which they evolved is based on pretending that the genome and mDNA are the same thing.

Mitochondrial DNA tends to be more constant, and so it's a good way of finding common descent in closely-related species. But it won't tell you how the cecal valve evolved.

However, there would be an easy way for creationists to settle this. Sequence the DNA of the original population and show a cecal valve gene hiding there unexpressed.

Don't anyone hold your breath. They might not be Nobel prize winners, but they aren't that dumb.

So you think that the lizards landed on the island, had a whole lot of babies among which a long sequence of random mutations lined up allowing for a beneficial trait that propagated throughout the population so that the novel feature became the norm -- all in about 30 years (at most).

:chuckle:

This is why evolutionists are laughed at.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe admits:
Meanwhile, the challenge remains unanswered.

Jose writes:

And non-existent.

He's talking about the frequent requests made to him to support his claim that evolution is refuted by math.

He'll never take up that challenge, because he just made it up, and doesn't know enough math to avoid embarrassing himself.

What did you think he meant?

 

[Jose Fly]

He's talking about the frequent requests made to him to support his claim that evolution is refuted by math.

That doesn't make sense. Why would Stripe keep referencing a challenge put to him that he hasn't answered?

What did you think he meant?

He's been referencing some "challenge" for most of this week, yet can't say what it is or where it was issued. I even went through his posts, linked to them, quoted them, and asked him where this challenge is, but as we all have come to expect from Stripe, he just waved it away.

Doesn't really matter. If it was such an important thing he'd restate it every chance he got. But since he's both a little scared and dim, he never will.

 

[Stripe]

And non-existent.

Evolutionists hate even to admit that a challenge exists.

Stipe makes up a new storyrry, that's wrong, too. Luria and Delbruck showed that changes in organisms do not happen as a response to environment.

Nope. Guess what? Their experiments showed organisms responding predictably and repeatedly to the same environmental changes.

Surprise!

And sticking with the example we were discussing, the evidence shows that there could not have been any evolution.

Surprise again.

Stipe admits:
Meanwhile, the challenge remains unanswered.ose writes:He's talking about the frequent requests made to him to support his claim that evolution is refuted by math.e'll never take up that challenge, because he just made it up, and doesn't know enough math to avoid embarrassing himself.hat did you think he meant?

Barbarian and his delusions again. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

So you think that the lizards landed on the island, had a whole lot of babies

Lizards do that. I thought you knew.

among which a long sequence of random mutations

We know that happens constantly. Not much results, if the organisms are well-adapted in an unchanging environment. But these were placed on an island were insects were few and plants were pretty much the only source of food. So in a few decades, mutations that slightly increased the ability to obtain and digest plant material were favored over others. A longer gut is one of those, but there's a limit to how long you can make it. So if it's folded into a spiral, you get more surface area per unit length. Even small differences of a millimeter or less can make a difference in survival. (examples available, if you doubt this).

lined up allowing for a beneficial trait

For example, every generation, the lizards that had slightly longer digestive systems tended to survive. So incremental changes over time led to a new digestive organ.

that propagated throughout the population

Natural selection. Those able to gain a little more nourishment from plants were the ones that tended to survive. And so lizards with longer digestive tracts were the ones available in the next generation. And then mutations occur again, with selection. It's not that hard. Even most honest creationists understand this.

so that the novel feature became the norm

I don't think that there are any that are genetically like the original population. They have larger heads and stronger bites, a new digestive organ, and shorter legs.

 

[Stripe]

Lizards do that. I thought you knewWe know that happens constantly. Not much results, if the organisms are well-adapted in an unchanging environment. But these were placed on an island were insects were few and plants were pretty much the only source of food. So in a few decades, mutations that slightly increased the ability to obtain and digest plant material were favored over others. A longer gut is one of those, but there's a limit to how long you can make it. So if it's folded into a spiral, you get more surface area per unit length. Even small differences of a millimeter or less can make a difference in survival. (examples available, if you doubt this).For example, every generation, the lizards that had slightly longer digestive systems tended to survive. So incremental changes over time led to a new digestive organ.Natural selection. Those able to gain a little more nourishment from plants were the ones that tended to survive. And so lizards with longer digestive tracts were the ones available in the next generation. And then mutations occur again, with selection. It's not that hard. Even most honest creationists understand this.I don't think that there are any that are genetically like the original population. They have larger heads and stronger bites, a new digestive organ, and shorter legs.

:darwinsm:

:mock: Evolutionism

 

[The Barbarian]

He's been referencing some "challenge" for most of this week, yet can't say what it is or where it was issued. I even went through his posts, linked to them, quoted them, and asked him where this challenge is, but as we all have come to expect from Stripe, he just waved it away.

Oh, yeah. He does that. He'll pretend that he made a "challenge" you never answered, and then when you ask him what it was, he'll never tell you, but continue to insist he made it and you never answered it.

It's an important part of the playbook some creationists use. They agree with Luther than it's O.K. to lie for a good cause. Not all of them, of course. There are good and honest creationists, who wouldn't dream of doing that kind of thing.

It's like watching a little kid trying to fool you. He doesn't realize that he's being so obvious.

 

[Jose Fly]

There are good and honest creationists, who wouldn't dream of doing that kind of thing.

Who?

 

[Stripe]

Oh, yeah. He does that. He'll pretend that he made a "challenge" you never answered, and then when you ask him what it was, he'll never tell you, but continue to insist he made it and you never answered it. It's an important part of the playbook some creationists use. They agree with Luther than it's O.K. to lie for a good cause. Not all of them, of course. There are good and honest creationists, who wouldn't dream of doing that kind of thing.It's like watching a little kid trying to fool you. He doesn't realize that he's being so obvious.

Right here in this thread, in fact.

Evolutionists hate reading.

Creationists should not use the word "species." It has numerous definitions that shift about, keeping the concept vague and malleable. The word (and all its derivatives) is next to useless in a scientific setting.

The definition of a kind is: All the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population.

We can take the definition I provided, look at evidence and test the competing ideas that all animals are one kind or many.

Science. :thumb:

You should try it one day. :chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

The definition of a kind is: All the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population.

And you have no idea how to tell what organisms share a common ancestry, or by what mechanism it happened.

Other than that......