Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?

[laughsoutloud]

Wings are very complicated things. Do you still believe as evolutionists did before that the scales evolved into the feathers? How did the wing develop then? How did the bones in birds turn hollow? There exists special oils on alot of feathers how did this happen? If you will picture in your mind a second of what your trying to teach me. You say [or alot of evolutionists say] that the birds came from the dinosaurs. A huge reptilian somehow changed into a little light bird. If this is science, it is science fiction. :wazzup:

Actually, flight has evolved independently at least 3 times. We have good records to indicate that feathers evolved - including strong evidence that some dinosaurs were feathered (for warmth?) - so re purposing those feathers for flight, given the hundreds of millions of years involved, does not seem like much of a stretch.

Dinosaurs were not only large, they came in all sizes, and it it not unusual for creatures to change size due to environmental pressures (compare a condor to a hummingbird).

Even more to the point, the fossil record absolutely does not support a 6,000 year old earth and recent global flood. So we know that it did not happen as outlined in Genesis 1. So far, evolution fits the facts - though we still have lots to learn. Don't make the mistake of thinking that evolution is in fact dogmatic, in the way creationists are. Evolution changes and adapts all the time to new evidence. But creationism does not fit the evidence gathered to date, and it is unlikely that any new discovery will change that. Even if we find gene splicing machinery at each major increase in complexity, this would not demonstrate that Genesis 1 is accurate - just that we were made by some other life, and that life would have, in all likelihood, evolved as well.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Blah, blah, blah, smae old stuff. God has no cause. Whatever has a beginning has a cause. God had no beginning so to say what I believe is the same your wrong.

And that's supposed to somehow be MORE logical than the Big Bang? You guys really crack me up.

We can trace back to the beginning with the earth.
Unfortunately for you evolutionists counting years is a problem :crackup:

Unfortunately for you the actual age of the Earth lines up with the "evolutionist" estimate not the biblical one. Don't worry, though. You can keep hiding from reality behind your bible if it makes happy. Or you can open your eyes and see that a literal interpretation of scripture is just going to make you look like an embarrassing anachronism. Whichever works for you.

 

[GuySmiley]

Yes, imaginations are good. Your point?

Its obvious. You have to try to miss it. Have you ever witnessed a creature's front legs move around to its back and become wings? Of course not a particular creature, I mean the way evolution tells us it did? No, its an imagined explanation. I dont mean that negatively. Using evolution's paradigm, scientists thought up that explanation. Of course we can't observe evolution . . . the kind of evolution we disagree about. All we have are our individual thresholds for whats a reasonable explaination, given present evidence, or not. See how this ties into being incredulous?

Could you explain the evidence,then? For example,why do humans have a gene for producing vitamin C, even though it is broken? Why do rats have the same gene (but it works)? Why do chimps have the same non-working gene that we have?

I think it is because rats, chimps and humans all got the gene from the same common ancestor, but it broke before chimps and humans split, but after chimps and humans split from rats. It is a simple copy error- easy to see how it happened, hard to argue design.

No, I can't explain it. It tips toward common ancestor. If we accept that the gene is useless, then it is fully in the common ancestor column of evidence. If it isnt useless then it could just as easily go into the common designer column.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Its obvious. You have to try to miss it. Have you ever witnessed a creature's front legs move around to its back and become wings? Of course not a particular creature, I mean the way evolution tells us it did? No, its an imagined explanation. I dont mean that negatively. Using evolution's paradigm, scientists thought up that explanation. Of course we can't observe evolution . . . the kind of evolution we disagree about. All we have are our individual thresholds for whats a reasonable explaination, given present evidence, or not. See how this ties into being incredulous?


No, I can't explain it. It tips toward common ancestor. If we accept that the gene is useless, then it is fully in the common ancestor column of evidence. If it isnt useless then it could just as easily go into the common designer column.

POTD :first:

 

[ThePhy]

Wings are very complicated things. Do you still believe as evolutionists did before that the scales evolved into the feathers? How did the wing develop then? How did the bones in birds turn hollow? There exists special oils on alot of feathers how did this happen?

This is a little better than your previous statement of naked disbelief. Not being an expert on avian evolution, I just did a google search on feather evolution. I found several Fundamentalist Christian sites echoing the type of arguments you are presenting. But I also found a number of scientific discussions about evolutionary answers to the questions you pose. I can copy and pasts those ideas here, or you can do what I did, and look for yourself.

Just for starters, here are some credible scientific publications that show that science has seriously looked at the ideas you snicker at. If you are serious, tell us the weaknesses in what they present:

Ji, Q., Norell, M.A., Gao, K-Q., Ji, S-A., and Ren, D. (2001) The distribution of integumentary structures in a feathered dinosaur. Nature, 410, 1084-1088.

Prum, R.O. (1999) Development and evolutionary origin of feathers. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution), 285(4), 291-306.

Sues, H-D. (2001) Ruffling feathers. Nature, 410, 1036-1037.

Xu, X., Zhou, Z-h., and Prum, R.O. (2001) Branched integumental structures in Sinornithosaurus and the origin of feathers. Nature, 410, 200-204.

If you will picture in your mind a second of what your trying to teach me.

Up to now, I haven’t been trying to teach you anything. I have been asking to see if you have reasonable technical reasons for you disbelief in the evolution of wings. Some of the types of arguments you have relied on so far – “I don’t believe it” and “too complicated” are hardly worthy of answers. And in the world of science (as in many other fields), mockery of an idea is seen as a smokescreen for the lack of substantive arguments.

You say [or a lot of evolutionists say] that the birds came from the dinosaurs. A huge reptilian somehow changed into a little light bird. If this is science, it is science fiction. :wazzup:

I really question how serious you are at trying to see if there are credible explanations for the evolution of wings, when you stoop to such transparently silly arguments. 1) Were all dinosaurs huge? 2) Are all birds small? 3) As a Christian, I presume you believe that Chihuahuas and Great Danes (up to 100 times as heavy as Chihuahuas) all came from the pair of dogs on the Ark a mere few thousand years ago. Yet you strain at the size issue for dinosaurs and birds when there is ten-thousand times as much time involved as for your dogs? I can see how you judge what is fiction.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

We know, from experiments in labs, that information is added to genes in the process of evolution.

Name one experiment where this has been shown.

 

[laughsoutloud]

Name one experiment where this has been shown.

Why do I have to do all the Googling?

But just to show that I am a nice guy...

Here is a net gain in the ability to digest milk.

Here is the ability to digest nylon - this is a man-made substance, so it would have taken new information to adapt to eat nylon.

And here is Dr. Seelke (ID advocate) Kansas Board of Education Hearings testimony, being interviewed by (pro creationism) Chairman Abrams)about his research into evolution:

Q. (BY CHAIRMAN ABRAMS) Are you saying that the evolution in the bacteria that you are doing and the other experiments that you have been describing are actually adding genetic material?

A. What I would do-- now, the ones that I am doing, you would be-- you would be-- yes, you would-- that is a-- there is a small edition-- right, there's an addition of capabilities that occurs. Now, if I-- for instance, if I take my gene and I have one mistake in it and by random processes that one mistake can be fixed. And I think you would say that, yes, that cell is better and it has gained a little bit of information. It is-- it hasn't-- this is a small gain that produces a very large change. The gene that I'm looking at has 268 amino acids, 267 of them are right. Okay. There's one mistake. There's one base change causing one amino acid change and the thing is broke. And so, yeah, I'm making one change. Has that cell gained information? It would appear, yes, that it has gained information. Not a lot of information.

(emphasis mine)
Lots of hemming and hawing, but he admits, even in his own pro-ID research, that he has demonstrated that evolution can result in the creation of new information.

I could go on and on - and so could you - just Google!

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Why do I have to do all the Googling?

But just to show that I am a nice guy...

Here is a net gain in the ability to digest milk.

Here is the ability to digest nylon - this is a man-made substance, so it would have taken new information to adapt to eat nylon.

I asked for an experiment -- not a bunch of articles.

I could go on and on

And maybe you should, because you haven't given me what I've asked for yet.

 

[laughsoutloud]

Ah, just found this one - it is a good example of the evolution of a novel feature.

Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."

(emphasis mine)

Here you go - verified new genetic information, resulting in a novel adaptation in the modern world.

 

[laughsoutloud]

I asked for an experiment -- not a bunch of articles.




And maybe you should, because you haven't given me what I've asked for yet.

Not true, I did give you what you asked for, and then some! Dr. Seelke's testimony (which I provided for you, verbatim) is a Pro-ID scientist describing his experimental work. He admits that information was gained due to evolution during the course of his experiment. This is exactly what you asked for.

The other 3 examples simply shows that we see the same thing in the real world as well.

 

[Delmar]

Why do I have to do all the Googling?

When people make a claim, it is common to ask them to back it up. Is that so wrong?

 

[laughsoutloud]

When people make a claim, it is common to ask them to back it up. Is that so wrong?

Delmar, this conversation has been repeated numerous times. That evolution does in fact generate new information should not come as a surprise to anyone interested in the subject (unless, of course, they only read creationist propaganda).

As evolution is the consensus view of the overwhelming majority of scientists, it is the extraordinary claim (that evolution can't generate new information) that needs to be documented.

So if the claim is that adding new information through evolution is impossible, there should be no evidence to the contrary. Turns out that the evidence is plentiful and easy to find - which is why it amazes me that someone purporting to be familiar with the subject would ask for evidence.

That it can be refuted by a quick Internet search demonstrates my point - the claim that evolution produces a net gain in genetic information is well-established, even from Pro-ID researchers.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Not true, I did give you what you asked for, and then some!

No, you didn't.

Dr. Seelke's testimony (which I provided for you, verbatim) is a Pro-ID scientist describing his experimental work. He admits that information was gained due to evolution during the course of his experiment.

Breaking a gene isn't adding information -- it's just scrambling existing information. We're talking about new information.

This is exactly what you asked for.

No -- You made a claim, and I asked you to support it. Are you going to name an experiment in which information has been observed being added, or are you going to retract your statement?

 

[Johnny]

Prijambada ID et al., 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Through selective cultivation with 6-aminohexanoate linear dimer, a by-product of nylon-6 manufacture, as the sole source of carbon and nitrogen, Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO, which initially has no enzyme activity to degrade this xenobiotic compound, was successfully expanded in its metabolic ability. Two new enzyme activities, 6-aminohexanoate cyclic dimer hydrolase and 6-aminohexanoate dimer hydrolase, were detected in the adapted strains.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Ah, just found this one - it is a good example of the evolution of a novel feature.
(emphasis mine)

Here you go - verified new genetic information, resulting in a novel adaptation in the modern world.

Do you guys even read the articles you link to?

from National Geographic
The study demonstrates that a lot of change happens in island environments, said Andrew Hendry, a biology professor at Montreal's McGill University.

What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study.

There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."

I thought you said it was already verified? Now, either you didn't read the article, you didn't understand it, or you were being intentionally dishonest. Which is it?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Prijambada ID et al., 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Through selective cultivation with 6-aminohexanoate linear dimer, a by-product of nylon-6 manufacture, as the sole source of carbon and nitrogen, Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO, which initially has no enzyme activity to degrade this xenobiotic compound, was successfully expanded in its metabolic ability. Two new enzyme activities, 6-aminohexanoate cyclic dimer hydrolase and 6-aminohexanoate dimer hydrolase, were detected in the adapted strains.

Thanks, Johnny. Did this expanded metabolic activity come about due to random mutation and natural selection, or was it genetically engineered, or what? Just curious.

 

[Johnny]

Thanks, Johnny. Did this expanded metabolic activity come about due to random mutation and natural selection, or was it genetically engineered, or what? Just curious.

Subsequent studies identified a frameshift mutation of a duplicated gene as being responsible for the novel activity.

Good to see you around again (maybe I haven't been in the right threads?)

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Subsequent studies identified a frameshift mutation of a duplicated gene as being responsible for the novel activity.

Ah... thanks. I was reading the paper (you can find it here if you're interested), and it basically said they didn't know what was causing it.

Good to see you around again (maybe I haven't been in the right threads?)

It's good to see you again too, Johnny. I've been a little busy lately, but I've been trying to carve out a little bit of free time when I'm able.

 

[ThePhy]

Name one experiment where this has been shown.

Look up the work of Lynn Allen-Hoffmann at the University of Wisconsin Medical School. A few years ago she was involved in discovering a random mutation that converted skin cells that were dying into a healthy strain. As to whether information was added, from the article it says “The researchers know how these cells differ genetically, in that they have a duplication of one section of the long arm of chromosome eight.” No information lost, just added.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Look up the work of Lynn Allen-Hoffmann at the University of Wisconsin Medical School. A few years ago she was involved in discovering a random mutation that converted skin cells that were dying into a healthy strain. As to whether information was added, from the article it says “The researchers know how these cells differ genetically, in that they have a duplication of one section of the long arm of chromosome eight.” No information lost, just added.

So you think we'll ever have a strain of humans with immortal skin? And if so, should we classify them as another species?