God and natural selection

" The problem with this is that statistically the mutation is just as likely to happen twice as it is to happen once. Seeing that similar genetic design was used for humans, apes, and monkeys only makes it far more likely to have occurred under the right environmental conditions."

I don't see how you think that this helps you. The chance of a given mutation is pretty rare. Of course the chances of it happening in one case is just as rare as the same thing happening in a differnt case. This similar low probability does not make it more likely for the same thing to happen over and over.

And since this came out of Paul's vitamin C discussion...

The set of four genes for making vitamin C is widely distributed. Same sequence. So why is it that the primates ONLY have the mutation if this particular mutation really is favored for some reason? There are other animals with other mutations. Why did ALL primates only get the one while other animals with the same genes got different mutations?

"Before you scream foul... consider that evolutionists believe that evolution accounts for the eye... via 12 lines of convergent evolution whose boundaries aren't always as distinct as would be expected."

Citation?

What twelve separate lines led to the SAME eye design?

Eyes are pretty useful you know. Why did the designer come up with so many different designs and distribute them in a manner consistent with the nested heirarchies of evolution? Even if some designs are optimized for certain applications, the different designs are not distributed according to such applications.

"BTW, I caught something very interesting in UTE's last post concerning the origins of exons and introns. He even said the latter was once active but is now "junk". That sounds to me like genetic complexity, order, flexibility, and code that was lost in the past. IOW's, the answer to your question lies in the current construction of the gene itself. It isn't the same. It isn't as good perhaps. But it still functions."

Then you dod not read it right. Here is the paragraph.

I never said anything about introns being formerly useful. They are the "junk" between the coding parts of a given gene. Some of these have been shown to be useful in regulation and some are just useless pieces to be spliced out.

 

"For instance the whale example, I have seen people argue that since the vestigal bones are useless that is evidence for evolution. But when it is pointed out that they may not be useless... they claim that support evolution as well... that it demonstrate how a mutation can be retained because it suits a new purpose."

Then you do not understand how the term is used.

That some whales have a vestigal pelvis does not mean that it must be useless. Somewhere recently was a series of posts where the pelvis and legs of a particular species of whale were examined. It was shown how these remnants maintained many bits from the original useful legs. Things like parts of the knee and hip joints like hinges and ligaments and muscles. Things which were no longer useful.

Now this is not to say that there was no use at all for the parts. But that they no longer did their original purpose. The levis and legs may anchor some minor muscles. But they are way too complex for such a simple task. They instead show that there were once much more complex and useful.

"Let's apply that to one of UTE's favorite "evidences" for evolution. The plastic eating bacteria. Evolutionists claim that this is a novel ability resulting from a mutation that added new information.

I say that this bacteria is descended from an original kind with a more robust genome including the ability to process both organic and inorganic natural polymers. This recessive trait goes unnoticed and unexpressed because maybe it exists at 9 sigma. However, once this trait is reintroduced, it flourishes since certain types of synthetic polymers are now readily available in some environments.

Is his explanation actually backed by tangible proof? No. Is mine? No. Why? Because we aren't talking about operational science... we're talking about history."

Can you remember me using the nylon bug? I don't remember using it, though I liekly did at some point. But it is far from one of my common themes.

In any case, your hypothesis can be shown to be incorrect because we have DNA from before and after the trait evolved. We can show that it was due to specific changes and not due to some latent ability. So I do have tangible evidence.

 

"Further, they believe that Tasmanian wolves and a few other species developed by convergently because they have a marsupial reproductive system... yet otherwise they belong with others of their type."

" That if they were not marsupial... they would be placed firmly inside the canine group closely related to wolves or foxes or some other species."

You are sadly misinformed by someone.

The "marsupial wolf" and the real wolf are similar only in their gross appearance and lifestyle. In morphology, the marsupial wolf was marsupial through and through. It was not just the reproductive system.

There is nothing at all in their morphology that would lead anyone to think that they were a member of the carnivores. [Not the generic grouping of meat eaters but the formal grouping of placental mammals like canines, bears and cats.]

I will give you the same offer as Paul of more rope to see if you can hang yourself my trying to make your case with facts. Or you can hang yourself by not making a case.

 

[snip long cut and paste from Helen on vestigal organs]

This goes back to what I told Scott. They do not have to be completely useless. Some just do not serve their original purpose and/or are too complex for their current function. Just because you can find a use for some does not change this.

Now Helen, how many times have I heard you asked if you can wiggle your ears? Can you wiggle your ears? Why? Our distant ancestors could turn their hears to help them hear better. Watch a dog or cat. (Not that I am saying they are our ancestors!) Some of us have not lost this ability.

I think I have instead asked you in the past if you got goose bumps. Not sure that I ever got an answer. But we are all familar with animals puffing up their fur. Cats can do it to make themselves look bigger when frightened. Sometimes you will see animals do it in the cold to puff up the fur for greater warmth. Now look at you own arm the next time you are cold and feel goose bumps coming up. Or when something frightens you with the same reaction. We have hardly any body hair. Raising the hair on end will not keep us warmer nor will it make us look bigger. Yet we retain this function from our hairier past.

Others?

There is a muscle, the subclavius, that goes from the first rib to the collarbone. In other animals this muscle is used in moving the front legs for walking. Humans have not completely lost this relic. Some people maintain both of these on each arm, some only one, and some people none. How does this fit into ID?

Another muscle we no longer use is the plantaris muscle. This is used by other primates to grasp with their feet. Ours has shrunk to the size of a nerve fiber.

There is a similar muscle in the lower arm called the palmaris. It is used by primates for hanging and climbing. In humans, it is often taken by surgeons in need of a muscle elsewhere for reconstructive surgery.

You can also see this in reverse. How about an example where humans have taken a minor ape muscle and turned it into something useful? It goes along with evolution usually happening by modification of existing structures. Most of us are sitting on our bottoms. These muscles are huge (I think they may be the largest in the body.) and are essential to upright walking like ours. The other apes have the same muscle, but it is much smaller. This is why when you see a chimp ambling around on two legs they have that funny look where their knees are sharply bent with the thigh bones much closer to horizontal than in a human. Humans have devoloped this into a large muscle for walking but it is the same muscle as in the other apes. For that matter, look at the whole subject of upright walking.

 

"Dear Paul,

Could you please share with us some examples and explain how each "stage" evolved from the previous one? [/QB][/QUOTE][sic]

I'm still waiting for your evidence."

He has given you somethings. Here is something else.

I have a reference for you.

A Pessimistic Estimate Of The Time Required For An Eye To Evolve, D.-E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 1994, 256, pp. 53-58.

They showed a potential series of step in which they eye could evolve. Each potential step is extremely gradual and each is advantageous over the last. They calculated that the changes could pessimistically happen in 1,829 steps or in 364,000 generations. Even if you take something fairly complex that might only reproduce a generation per year, an eye could evolve in less than a million years.

Here is a page that goes through some of the steps.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_stages.html

Now I can predict your objection. That would be that a possible path does not mean an actual path. But in this case, a path which is both possible and proboble is sufficient to refute your assertion that it could not have happened. It is bolstered by the observation that we see the proposed intermediate stages in use around the animal kingdom.