carnivore due to mutation loss?

Please help me understand your position on the felines. Are you saying that this one mutation occurred and all the felines that have this one mutation are therefore descendants of this primordial feline that had the mutation - or are you not? YOU are the one who brought up this mutation. Asking you for clarification of your position is not me mixing things up.

 

"UTE, squirrels do not have grinding teeth either."

What are those molars in the back of their mouth for?

http://www.mary.cc/squirrels/wgraysquirrel.htm

This also led to finding a nice summary of how wear on teeth can be used to infer ancient diets.

http://palaeo-electronica.org/2005_1/nelson14/main.htm

 

" As for fossils, I would not expect any from antediluvian times or even immediate post-diluvian times except for around the geologically active margins of the incipient continental plate boundaries and possibly some deep river valleys or gorges where mudslides may have occurred. "

Only looking for the period in which this diversification was taking place. No need for anything preflood. WOuld like to know what this proto cat looed like and what the intermediates looked like getting to the modern species. Maybe some fossils showing the changing biogeography and morphology of the kitties. Maybe some teeth with tooth wear indicating a herbivorous diet.

"Second, speciation or even separation (as with dogs and horses and such) is not macroevolution."

Then you have redefined "macroevolution."

 

From what you've posted, Helen, I take that as a yes that in your biological history version cheetahs, lions, tigers, cougars, pussy cats, and leapords all share a common ancestor from the time of Noah; and they all developed into these separate species from the time of Noah; and furthermore during all that development of these speperate species, not one new, useful protein ever developed, not one new, useful gene ever came into being for any of these species, but all their differentiation and modest successes they enjoy in their alternative environments are due to whittling away at genes, chopping off some here, some there, until in some cases you were left with nothing but a tiger, other cases left with nothing but a lion, other cases left with nothing but a pussy cat, other cases left with nothing but a leapord, all taking place at some unspecified time between the landing of the ark about 5000 or 6000 years ago and the time men began to record these various species.

Please let me know, once again, if in some way I have misunderstood your point of view, this seems to me to be what you are saying.

 

"In the same way the earliest canine had wolf, chihuahua, poodle, cocker, and the rest in him, yes, the earliest feline had all the felines in him.
Differentiation does not have to be a matter of knocking out genes. Plasticity -- the ability to vary -- is built into creation. We have short kids, tall kids, kids with kinky hair, straight hair, curly hair, kids with different skin tones and eye colors, etc. They are all of the human race. Whether Zulu or Pygmy, we are all humans. The variation is built in. Felines were the same, canines the same, etc. Variation does not mean genes need to be disabled!"

The variety comes from the differing alleles of given genes in the gene pool. YOu have only a pair of each "kind." You can have at most four alleles if somehow the pair was as genetically diverse as possible at every sing point in the genome. You have a bottleneck, not diversity. There is not storehouse of genetic diversity for you to get the various trait. Unless you wish to admit to beneficial mutations at an incredible rate.

"UTE, your definition of macroevolution is a cheat."

Biologists define it as speciation. You are calling speciation mere microevolution. You are the one taking a different view.

"However, if there were two pairs of felines on the Ark, one large cat variety and one small cat variety, that's fine by me..."

Nope, they both share that specific mutation you cited in the OP.

"Then you asked why I would presume cats all came from a common ancestor and use the mutation as evidence of that and not use apparent mutation similarities as evidence that, say, the human and guinea pig both came from the same ancestor."

Because they both have a mutation in the same gene? It is a different mutation. Now humans and the other apes and primates, that is a diferent story.

 

OK now Helen has agreed that there once was a single pair of wolves - just two, one male, one female - and that with absolutely no constructive positive mutations of any genes whatsoever, with only the whittling away of genes from that original pair, we have all our modern descendant dog varieties, including St Bernards, Russian Wolfhounds, little chihuahuas, bloodhounds, greyhounds, and daschounds . . .

There was once a single great cat and by absolutely no positive, constructive genetic changes but merely by whittling away and removing genetic instructions we arrived at Lions, Tigars, Cheetahs, Leapords of various kinds including snow leapords . . .

I submit that current genetic knowledge makes this proposed scenario to be utter nonsense. Positive, constructive genetic mutations would have been absolutely necessary to be part of that speciation. I further submit that anybody who thinks this kind of evolution could occur within a mere few thousand years or less has already accepted such a rapid pace of evolution that they have no basis for ever complaining that, given a billion years or so, all the life on earth could not have come about by means of evolution.

 

In the past you would have had a higher degree of information in genomes. Perhaps no one recorded it because it was a normal every day occurence. Higher information would have lead to high diversity - new things being expressed all the time. We see that people have different finger prints today - do we rush off and think some new species is here every time we don't get one identical? No - why? Because everyone has different finger prints - but they are all humans.

Or perhaps it was recorded and you have chosen to ignore it - such as is the case in Genesis 1-11.

 

I'm sure everyone would like to see your evidence.

Other normal everyday occurances got recorded. Yet new species suddenly appearing got no notice. Sorry. Not plausible.

First show us your evidence for higher information, then we'll see.

You think new species are like individual fingerprints? That's pretty weird, Gup.

Nothing about it in Genesis. There's no possible way to make such a thing happen without someone taking note of it.

This is almost as crazy as the argument that the Egyptian civilization didn't notice the Flood.

 

Helen, I asked and I asked for clarifications. I did the best I could with what you said. Please share where I misinterpreted your statements.

 

"UTE, it is not one gene per trait. Combinations and timing make up the majority of differences."

Yes, complex animals, such as mammals, make many more proteins than they have actual genes. That one of those things that has really been driven home by the genome project. The number of genes was just so low.

And of course this means that alternate splicing, when combined with other processes such as insertion of transposable elements which then mutate to make new stop or start codons and thus introduce variety, is a powerful method of bringing about new traits.

But you say that mutations are always deleting information so it seems that you would be unable to fully take advantage of this process.

So I can only assume that you think that, in simplified terms, that if you take this combination of exons you get a particular trait in one species and if you take and alternative grouping of hte same exons you can get a different trait in a different species. Somehow the total of the exons when combined in different ways gives the full range of traits of the different species from a given "kind."

Close?

Now, the question is can you support that? DO you have evidence of these alternate arrangements actually doing as you say? Can you point to studies that have shown that the same exons, unchanged, in different species in different combinations give rise to the various traits?

It seems that what little I have read does not support this. Changes to the genes themselves often cause new functions, especially after duplication. And the alternative splicing of the genes seems to provide new traits when combined with toher types of mutations that provide new genetic material with which to work. SInce you do not seem to allow for new and useful genetic material to be created, these methods seem unavailable to you.

I suppose you could try and claim them, but then you would also have to allow that they can be used as everyone else asserts.

 

It's quite easy to proove: simply breed animals and select specific traits - for example breed rabbits and only isolate and separate the white ones out. Keep doing this, and eventually you will only have white rabbits. No matter how many times you let these white rabbits breed with each other, they will have white rabbits. The only way to get them to have color again is to mate them with a rabbit that has color in it's genes. Why? Because the information for other colors would have been lost. If the group is isolated, and can't mate with animals that have genes for color, they will never get the color again. So common sense and observation tell us that, genetically, we see information loss happen on a very wide scale, and gain not happening at all. So we can assume that loss plus loss plus loss plus loss equals loss - unless you are an evolutionist... then loss plus loss plus loss equals HUGE gain.

 

I'm sure everyone would like to see your evidence.

How does human intervention show what happened in the past? You can't be serious about that.

Unless, as occasionally happens, we get a mutation that produces color.

This means nothing, of course, as to what happens in nature. Human intervention tends to produce monocultures of plants and homozygous animals, while nature does just the opposite.

Try again.

 

How about the fact that in order for evolution to have happened, there must have been tremendous advances - gains - in genetic information. This must have happened billions upon billions of times to increase the information in DNA from a paramecium to a person. However, scientists do not observe this trend. Instead, we see countless examples of genetic losses of information - it happens quite easily in fact in every day natural situations. However when pressed to give an example of a gain of information which occurs naturally, scientists can give only a handful of debatable examples. Yet the entire theory of evolution is predicated on this happening billions and billions of times. Moreover, this has to happen rapidly - the changes must occur all at once or the mutations will be quickly selected out as useless structures. This means we should be able to observe clear, irrefutable examples. But we do not.

Moreover it defys the laws of nature. We see in nature that one constant is death. Everything dies. Everything wears out. Some things take longer, some things take shorter. The 2nd law of thermodynamics deals with that issue. However, evolution defys this trend. It claims that, instead of a negative trend (becoming worn out and increasing in entropy), the DNA molecule experiences a positive trend. It defys logic, common sense, observation, and the laws of nature to believe in evolution.

 

Haha! It's so funny to see the same arguments recycled over and over again even after they've been addressed and refuted. If you YEC's could have the courage to stick out just one, and I mean just one single solitary thread where the actual evidence is debated I think I would spontaneously combust from the shock.

 

Check out this actual scientific debate.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0615debate.asp

Opening Essays: http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/phil_uebergang/001149.html

Second Essay (rebuttal and/or new material): http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/phil_uebergang/001165.html

Final Essay (rebuttal/ summery): http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/phil_uebergang/001177.html

You will notice that the creationists repeatedly offered scientific evidence, and the evolutionists repeatedly announced that no evidence had been offered. The evolutionists ademently refuse to even acknowlege the evidence that the creationists had offered. Why? Because the basis for evolutionists claims against YEC is that it is not scientific because it can't be refuted, argued, or tested. By providing a refutation to the ample evidence offered by the creationists, they undermine the entire premise of their argument. They basically say "YEC have no evidence. YEC isn't scientific because you can't disproove their evidence. Here is the proof that their evidence is wrong." You see their whole argument is rediculous - hence the reason movements like ID are gaining such sweeping momentum at the speed they are.