RE: Evolution/Creation debate

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Evolution/Creation debate

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/16/2014 8:14:15 PM

Milesnmiles

Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
The argument about birds doesn't hold. All a different phenotype needs is a slight survival advantage over the others of it's generation. If full flight were required for birds to survive and reproduce, thus further evolve, why are there so many flightless birds living and breeding quite successfully all through bird history and in most environments today.

You are kidding right? Surely you must realize that there are some who believe that those flightless birds exist because they were created that way and have always existed that way and had no need to evolve and so their existence, to some who believes that, would in no way prove birds evolved.

quote:

Early reptiles that could glide even a Bit better from high places or run up even slightly steeper trees or slopes (The two most investigated/promoted of current hypothesis of why birds evolved wings) has a Bit better chance of living long enough to raise offspring that carry it's new geno/phenotype. This doesn't have to be a giant change, and Evolution theory doesn't make these mutations or changes common in order for them to work. A common estimate is maybe 1% of gene mutations are favorable, even enough for the novel organism to survive long enough to a live birth, to say nothing of reproducing surviving offspring. But, there are a lot of years, and organisms.

The old, given enough monkeys and enough typewriters and enough time. In reality the monkeys would only destroy the typewriters.

quote:

Again, you don't understand asexual vs sexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction offers different development paths. It's more 'efficient' in ways but develops novel combinations far less often, an evolutionary advantage in changing environments. (Why Punctuated Evolution seems more common than gradual.) If an organism inherits a novel gene from one parent, (Even if that parent didn't have the gene itself, the gene changing after the parent matured or it's seed separated developmentally from the rest of the organism, which can happen as early as the blastula.) it normally expresses that gene Only if it isn't a recessive one opposed to a dominant gene. The organism's offspring are the same, a gene can enter a population and not be expressed till it finds a similar recessive from the other parent, in which case the offspring is now a new phenotype (body shape or function). Dominant genes express first and every generation, phenotype can be different between D/D and D/r genotype, or not. With sexual reproduction, the Dominant and recessive genes get stirred strongly every generation, particularly in multi-gene organisms. We have 21 separate ones, the possible genotypes from any male and female set of parents is Huge, Nature looking for that Sport what does better in today's world.

Thanks for the explanation. Now let's see, "the possible genotypes from any male and female set of parents is Huge" and they produce a "new phenotype", which can no longer mate with the old "phenotype", how is this "new phenotype" passed on? Aren't you going to need at at least one more? Of the opposite gender? Since "the possible genotypes from any male and female set of parents is Huge" what are the chances of that happening even if they mated again and not with someone else? And this happening every time a "new phenotype" occurs, thousands if not millions of times.

quote:

What changes gene pools is when a novel genotype ends up giving it's bearers any advantage in either the same or a developing (or just traveled to) novel environment over the previous genotype of it's species. Sickle cell mutations kept dying out everywhere they occurred in human populations as they normally disadvantaged the bearers. Except in Africa where Malaria decimated human groups. Sickle Cell prevents enough of the damage of Malaria parasites to give it's 'owners' a net survival advantage, so it's very common in C. Africa populations.

Yet interestingly, everybody remains human.
;-)

(in reply to epiphiny43)