Re: The "Theory" of Evolution

Quote from: babsinva on March 30, 2009, 11:28:43 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 29, 2009, 09:38:44 PM

Not so. They found the rate at which humans differentiated by their location.

Creationists claim we have blacks, whites, asians, etc. from the tower of babel, since they also claim we all come from two people and should be biologically similar. Then they claim the tower of babel happened a certain number of years ago, but the time period they gave would require a massive acceleration of mutations in our DNA.
A basic example of them twisting facts to make it look like they are right.

You brought up mutations in your comments and so I mentioned the mutations back.  If that was not what you wanted to discuss -then my mistake.

By mutations I meant the one's that make you black, chinese, asian, white, etc.

That seems to be at least partly evolution. the people who live south have darker skin because they get more sunlight. at lest the difference between blacks and whites seems to be more based on evolution rather then random mutations.

Quote from: Raist on March 31, 2009, 12:37:30 PM

Quote from: babsinva on March 30, 2009, 11:28:43 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 29, 2009, 09:38:44 PM

Not so. They found the rate at which humans differentiated by their location.

Creationists claim we have blacks, whites, asians, etc. from the tower of babel, since they also claim we all come from two people and should be biologically similar. Then they claim the tower of babel happened a certain number of years ago, but the time period they gave would require a massive acceleration of mutations in our DNA.
A basic example of them twisting facts to make it look like they are right.

You brought up mutations in your comments and so I mentioned the mutations back.  If that was not what you wanted to discuss -then my mistake.

By mutations I meant the one's that make you black, chinese, asian, white, etc.

That seems to be at least partly evolution. the people who live south have darker skin because they get more sunlight. at lest the difference between blacks and whites seems to be more based on evolution rather then random mutations.

You've basically proven that you don't understand evolution.

That is random mutation.

People in the south are darker because the ones that randomly mutated to have dark skin died of 3rd degree sun burns less often. This increased the population of people with the random mutation to be dark.


And my point was the time period to get these differences is less in the creationist model than in the evolutionary one.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on March 31, 2009, 12:59:27 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 31, 2009, 12:37:30 PM

Quote from: babsinva on March 30, 2009, 11:28:43 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 29, 2009, 09:38:44 PM

Not so. They found the rate at which humans differentiated by their location.

Creationists claim we have blacks, whites, asians, etc. from the tower of babel, since they also claim we all come from two people and should be biologically similar. Then they claim the tower of babel happened a certain number of years ago, but the time period they gave would require a massive acceleration of mutations in our DNA.
A basic example of them twisting facts to make it look like they are right.

You brought up mutations in your comments and so I mentioned the mutations back.  If that was not what you wanted to discuss -then my mistake.

By mutations I meant the one's that make you black, chinese, asian, white, etc.

That seems to be at least partly evolution. the people who live south have darker skin because they get more sunlight. at lest the difference between blacks and whites seems to be more based on evolution rather then random mutations.

You've basically proven that you don't understand evolution.

That is random mutation.

People in the south are darker because the ones that randomly mutated to have dark skin died of 3rd degree sun burns less often. This increased the population of people with the random mutation to be dark.


And my point was the time period to get these differences is less in the creationist model than in the evolutionary one.

There is also a certain difference that existed before. the skin gets darker using the genes that were all ready there. You don't need random mutation. you can just use the genes that were already there. yes I know at one point there was a random mutation, however the genes were there before the evolution of the skin change started. yes sometime evolution is allowing helpful random mutation to grow and spread, but a big portion is small changes using genes that existed for million of years before the species evolved before the species existed. random mutations do not play as big a part in evolution as people believe.

You really need to learn about evolution. Getting a tan over and over and over will in now way help you get darker skin mutations.

Your genes that give you a tan simply release melanin into your skin. In order to be black your body must naturally release melanin at all times at a higher level, this is caused by separate genes. So no, you don't already start out with the genes for skin pigment.

The number of mutations between different races is known and the rate at which this would have to happen in the creationist model gives far less time for these mutations to occur. No matter how many/few mutations have occurred, the creationist model supplies a lower amount of time.

Therefore creationists believe in a faster rate of mutation than people that believe in evolution.

There is also a certain difference that existed before. the skin gets darker using the genes that were all ready there. You don't need random mutation. you can just use the genes that were already there. yes I know at one point there was a random mutation, however the genes were there before the evolution of the skin change started. yes sometime evolution is allowing helpful random mutation to grow and spread, but a big portion is small changes using genes that existed for million of years before the species evolved before the species existed. random mutations do not play as big a part in evolution as people believe.

You're talking about recombination.  It drives evolution along with natural selection and a few other mechanisms.  However, you are talking about it incorrectly.  For genes to be recombined a mutation needs to occur.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on March 31, 2009, 09:10:46 PM

There is also a certain difference that existed before. the skin gets darker using the genes that were all ready there. You don't need random mutation. you can just use the genes that were already there. yes I know at one point there was a random mutation, however the genes were there before the evolution of the skin change started. yes sometime evolution is allowing helpful random mutation to grow and spread, but a big portion is small changes using genes that existed for million of years before the species evolved before the species existed. random mutations do not play as big a part in evolution as people believe.

You're talking about recombination.  It drives evolution along with natural selection and a few other mechanisms.  However, you are talking about it incorrectly.  For genes to be recombined a mutation needs to occur.

Not recombination, Lets go simple version I know there is more two it then this but I really don't want to find out all the genes there are that deal with skin color. Lets say there are 5. Now lets go with simple each gene ether makes you lighter or darker. Now as they move south they get more sunlight and the people that have a lot of light color genes die off. soon the only people that are around after a lot of generations is the people with 5 genes that all are making you dark. it does not require any genes to change just some to die off. the genes were always there they just weren't often all in one human.

Ok, that's called genetic drift. It reduces allele frequency.  And you're still using it incorrectly. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

Not how it works. There are a set of genes that determine how much melanin is released naturally and how much is released due to stress. People with lighter skin die more easily, people with skin too dark for their climate die of vitamin deficiencies thanks to not enough sunlight penetrating their skin.

When a random mutation occurs within this gene it either increases the output of melanin or decreases it.

In summation no.

Sometimes I wonder if this is too easy.  Like, should I be applying myself to a more challenging past time?

Not how it works. There are a set of genes that determine how much melanin is released naturally and how much is released due to stress. People with lighter skin die more easily, people with skin too dark for their climate die of vitamin deficiencies thanks to not enough sunlight penetrating their skin.

When a random mutation occurs within this gene it either increases the output of melanin or decreases it.

In summation no.

Okay I disagree about the driving force of evolution. I am going to talk to a biology proffer tomorrow. If she agrees with you I will admit it on line tomorrow. If she agrees with me I will keep arguing with you. If I forget to talk to her i wont post on this topic. I still believe that random mutations deal less with short term evolution but i won't argue till I get some evidence.

There is no driving force in evolution. There is simply random mutations that either die out or survive. If they provide little to no benefit it is a toss up if they will survive. If they provide a great benefit they may survive. If they provide a great hindrance without immediately killing the organism they may die out. Evolution lacks purpose, it happens because it happens. Animals exist because their parents survived. They do things because the last generation that did them survived and passed it on.

Eye color is a great example. Blue eyes are a recent addition to the human genome, they provide little known benefit, but they survived, perhaps because they look different but somehow attractive. We can trace all people with blue eyes back to one common ancestor. Perhaps it was just the fact that the different eye color showed that the two people weren't related.

There is no driving force in evolution. There is simply random mutations that either die out or survive. If they provide little to no benefit it is a toss up if they will survive. If they provide a great benefit they may survive. If they provide a great hindrance without immediately killing the organism they may die out. Evolution lacks purpose, it happens because it happens. Animals exist because their parents survived. They do things because the last generation that did them survived and passed it on.

Eye color is a great example. Blue eyes are a recent addition to the human genome, they provide little known benefit, but they survived, perhaps because they look different but somehow attractive. We can trace all people with blue eyes back to one common ancestor. Perhaps it was just the fact that the different eye color showed that the two people weren't related.

Okay out of curiosity do you no how many genes are involved in skin color.
The more genes the less random mutation is needed. Once you have enough the combination of genes can do evolution, at least small thing, this would be like my first example were 5 genes were involved, that can be evolution without mutations

But you assumed some made you darker and some made you lighter. In your assumption some just had to be disabled to do this.

There are two at most i believe. This can be backed up by albinos. They have a single mutation that removes all pigment, except possible in their eyes or hair. This means that either there are two genes controlling those two separate attributes or that that one gene gets altered slightly so it only works in those two specific areas.

Okay I am to tired to look up the number of genes tonight, I will get back to you tomorrow. I would like to say that one malfunctioning gene could throw off the rest of the genes so that there could be more genes involved  and that although your albino reference is evidence I would like to find something a little more concrete before I concede this argument.

Okay out of curiosity do you no how many genes are involved in skin color.
The more genes the less random mutation is needed. Once you have enough the combination of genes can do evolution, at least small thing, this would be like my first example were 5 genes were involved, that can be evolution without mutations

K, I'm going to explain somethings.  At conception you got 2 genes for the same thing.  The dominate gene is the one expressed in your appearance (and every other facet of your being in relation to genetics).  There isn't specifically one gene for eye color, there are many and the combination of these genes is called an allele.  In a healthy population, there are many alleles for the same trait (as in many different eye colors).  This prevents deformities that are seen from inbreeding.  If a healthy population of people moved to an island inhabited by flying snakes that only attacked people with blue eyes, then the people with blue eyes would have a lesser chance to survive and eventually the blue eyed allele would be gone from the gene pool.  That is Natural Selection.  If the population on the island, through no intervening circumstances, lost the blue eyed allele because it was simply rare to begin or because random sampling would favor one side, that would be called Genetic Drift.  This can be seen most easily in small isolated populations.  If the strand of genetic material was severed and reconnected somewhere else, this would be called Recombination.  While this is technically not a mutation because nothing it changed, it was just reorganized.  This does lead to a more diverse allele variance.   These are just three of the mechanisms that drive evolution.  So no, you don't necessarily need mutations to observe speciation, but you do need to learn how the mechanisms work before formulating hypotheses on them.  

Wasn't I arguing for natural selection? yes I know that there are two genes that do the same thing, I was saying what if there were 5 sets of genes that deal with skin color or more of them. My bio teacher wasn't here today so I couldn't ask how many were involved.

I'm pretty sure Raist is right about there being just 2.

On a side note, did you know that dogs just have 2 genes that determine hair colour?  One is coded for yellow, the other for black.  Any colour dog you see is a combination of these 2 genes.

Fawn colored boxers.

Fawn colored boxers.

Okay, so maybe that statement wasn't 100% accurate.

The base form of melanin is black. Melanin can also appear brown (often called liver in dogs) or blue-gray. The second pigment, which varies from pale cream through shades of yellow, tan and red to mahogany (as in the Irish Setter), is called phaeomelanin.

Source:http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/GENETICS/ColorGen.html

My point was that you don't need a lot of genes to show an enormous range of diversity.

Skin color is just one mutation. There are tons of genetic differences. Skin color is just one small one. Even bone structure can be used to identify race.

Quote from: Raist on March 28, 2009, 07:01:44 PM

Believe in?

Do I think it is possible they exist? Yes.

Do I believe they are here visiting our planet? I doubt it.

Do I know they exist or do not exist? No.

Interesting, even though no one has ever seen one it is possible for them to exist.

Many people have seen them. Many.

Those drunks, loons and morons are not adequate sources. No wonder you're an REer.