Captivity?

[Sisuitl]

Yeah, although maybe Rich can enlighten us. I wonder if the new color mutations appeared after the animals had been in a captive setting for a few generations or if they came from the wild like that.

If it was several generations after being captive you could theorize that possibly there was a reduction in adrenaline which affected how a particular genes is expressed, though it wouldn't explain why you can breed an animal like that to a wild caught corn and still get the oddly colored offspring.

 

[Sisuitl]

You know, it would be really interesting to test the levels of these different hormones in multi generation captive corns vs. wild caughts and see what the difference is. If a difference is found it would be really cool to see what the effect of adding them to developing embryos is......(wanders off thinking of a grad school project)

 

[TrpnBils]

Yeah, although maybe Rich can enlighten us. I wonder if the new color mutations appeared after the animals had been in a captive setting for a few generations or if they came from the wild like that.

I never really considered that possibility... I always assumed that the "captive" colors were due to localities of each kind of corn in the wild and the fact that breeders were bringing genes together that might not normally cross in the wild (for example, crossing a Florida snake with a South Carolina snake). Each subpopulation would have a different gene frequency than the other, right?

I don't know much about what it takes to get certain colors for the corns, but pick a hard-to-get color... I guess a good way to test that gene locality thing would be to see if you could get that hard-to-get color in the F1 or F2 generations from two wild-caught snakes. That would at least get rid of any possibility of domestication.

 

[Clint Boyer]

Although evolution is widely considered to be a scientific theory, the fact of the matter is that no scientific proof exists which even remotely supports such a theory.

Both creationism and evolution are theories. There is what is called proof from both sides but in reality, both sides 'prove' nothing.

Evolution uses information gathered from millions of years in the past, much further then creationism has explaination for. Creationism uses words wriiten by people from the past, (I would hope that they were more accurate reporters then those of today.)

Which faith is correct? who knows, I guess you just take your chances.

I just find it hard to follow any one dicipline without rock hard proof. Just because someone wrote it doesn't mean it's true!

 

[CAV]

Not necessarily ALL life forms, because sporadic mutations only affect some individuals, not the whole population. This means that if the mutation was somehow beneficial to the affected members (but not deleterious to the others), then they would be given the chance to differentiate. I don't think it's self-defeating because, again, evolution is not a linear process. Just because one thing evolves from another, that doesn't mean that the original will be wiped out. It branches, giving both a chance to survive. Now, if one outcompetes the other, then one species will die off, but that isn't always the case.

In the short run, it isn’t linear, but in the long run it is! You can't have it both ways. I fully understand that mutations affect individuals. The failure of evolution is that there is no evidence that spontaneous mutations have led to the creation of another life form. Differentiation simple indicates a physical change, not a species change. If a human is born with a different trait it does not indicate that the individual has formed a new species. Think of the changes that have occurred in human physiology in just the last century. The average height, weight, age and intelligence of humans have changed dramatically. This is indicative of changes in our physical environment through advances in diet, medicine and information access. At 6 feet, I am 2 inches taller than my father and 6 inches taller than my grandfather. I am merely a sample of a fundamental change in human beings. Our species is undergoing an adaptive process based upon changes in our culture such as better nutrition and wider availability of vitamins. If this continues for a thousand years, the average male may be 7 feet tall. Will that mean that based upon a physical change we will no longer be classified as humans? According to Evolution theory, yes. What sense does that make? A physical change doesn’t in anyway indicate that a species has evolved, it simple means it has changed.

Mutations don't happen because of selection. Selection happens (in part) because of sporadic mutations.

Not true my friend. All you have to do is look at genetics. Mutations in color, size, temperament, ect. are all accomplished through "selection". A male cardinal that has a color mutation and is more brightly colored than his peers has a better chance of competing for females and passing on his color. That is the whole definition of selection. Here's the kicker: The mutation doesn't in any way change his species identification as a cardinal.

You're right, nobody ever used that word except for me, but that's sure as hell what it feels like. I've kinda got my back up against a wall here because I seem to be the only one arguing this side of it. Creationists can argue the "where's the evidence" part of it without a problem, but if anyone who believes in evolution says "where's the evidence for Creation" then they're seen as a Bible basher and I'm not going to do that to myself. If I wasn't a Christian, maybe I wouldn't care, but I'm not going to say that God doesn't exist because I know that he does.

Kudos for standing your ground. I don't believe what I believe because that is simply "what I've been told". I've used my own ability to think analytically to make my determination based upon fact. The entire theory of evolution has failed to hold true to scientific scrutiny and Evolutionist have simply chosen to overlook its shortcomings out of necessity. As far as the evidence of creation, look around you. It isn't faith, its reality.

 

[Clint Boyer]

As far as the evidence of creation, look around you. It isn't faith, its reality.

The wonderful thing about faith is that it needs no bounds in reality at all. It just is therefore it's true.

The burden of proof lies in the hands of the scientic alone, which is very convenient.

Written human words are far from proof of anything.

If I were to create a belief to be followed that had no basis in reality, I would surely choose one that follows an unseen, unheard, invisible entity that has powers beyond belief but are only manifested in things that would occur naturally without any following whatsoever.

 

[TrpnBils]

If a human is born with a different trait it does not indicate that the individual has formed a new species.
.......
According to Evolution theory, yes. What sense does that make? A physical change doesn’t in anyway indicate that a species has evolved, it simple means it has changed.

You're right, that doesn't mean that humans are a different species if they are born with a mutation. Part of the definition of a species is that if two individuals can successfully produce offspring, then they are of the same species. However, there are some shortcomings to this part of the definition. For example, some people are unable to have children, but does that make them a different species? Of course not.

A male cardinal that has a color mutation and is more brightly colored than his peers has a better chance of competing for females and passing on his color. That is the whole definition of selection. Here's the kicker: The mutation doesn't in any way change his species identification as a cardinal.

Again, what you say here is right, but in my mind, the logic is backwards. If you look at the example you just gave, the cardinal was more brightly colored and that was selected for, right? If that's the case, then the mutation happened first, and selection happened because of the mutation, not the other way around. Saying that mutation follows selection doesn't follow logic for two reasons that I see. 1) Evolution (or selection) doesn't look forward in time. The genes don't say "well I think he would be able to reproduce more successfully if he were brighter, so I think I'll mutate now." The gene mutates, and if it helps him reproduce more, then that trait will be selected for. 2) A mutated gene is one that is different from the genes passed on by either parent (not just phenotypically, otherwise recessive alleles would be lumped into that definition too and we know that it doesn't work that way). So if the F1 generation individual has a mutated gene that neither of the parents have, and he passes that gene onto the F2 generation, it's no longer a mutation because it came from one of the parents. So with the cardinal example, it doesn't change the identification as a species, just like you said. But if the mutation was such that the mutated-gene cardinals had a feeding or reproductive advantage because of their mutation, then after several generations, they MIGHT form a new species. Think about it, if your goal was to have successful offspring and you knew you could, let's say, find food better than other cardinals because of your mutation, wouldn't you seek out other cardinals with the same mutation (so it's more likely you'll pass the advantage on)? Obviously this wouldn't work right away with only one bird having the mutation, but it would have to take place after several generations so that more and more had the mutation.

As far as the evidence of creation, look around you. It isn't faith, its reality.

I could just as easily substitute the word "evolution" for "creation" in that sentence and tell you the same thing. Where's your proof that all the species came about the way you believe they did? I'm not saying that I can prove evolution, because as Clint said, both evolution and creation are theories. I'm just saying that nobody can provide any evidence for one more than the other.


And I'm glad to see this thread has turned into something worth reading again! :spinner:

 

[CAV]

You're right, that doesn't mean that humans are a different species if they are born with a mutation. Part of the definition of a species is that if two individuals can successfully produce offspring, then they are of the same species. However, there are some shortcomings to this part of the definition. For example, some people are unable to have children, but does that make them a different species? Of course not.

Lack of repoduction only serves to prevent evolution.

Again, what you say here is right, but in my mind, the logic is backwards. If you look at the example you just gave, the cardinal was more brightly colored and that was selected for, right? If that's the case, then the mutation happened first, and selection happened because of the mutation, not the other way around. Saying that mutation follows selection doesn't follow logic for two reasons that I see. 1) Evolution (or selection) doesn't look forward in time. The genes don't say "well I think he would be able to reproduce more successfully if he were brighter, so I think I'll mutate now." The gene mutates, and if it helps him reproduce more, then that trait will be selected for. 2) A mutated gene is one that is different from the genes passed on by either parent (not just phenotypically, otherwise recessive alleles would be lumped into that definition too and we know that it doesn't work that way). So if the F1 generation individual has a mutated gene that neither of the parents have, and he passes that gene onto the F2 generation, it's no longer a mutation because it came from one of the parents. So with the cardinal example, it doesn't change the identification as a species, just like you said. But if the mutation was such that the mutated-gene cardinals had a feeding or reproductive advantage because of their mutation, then after several generations, they MIGHT form a new species. Think about it, if your goal was to have successful offspring and you knew you could, let's say, find food better than other cardinals because of your mutation, wouldn't you seek out other cardinals with the same mutation (so it's more likely you'll pass the advantage on)? Obviously this wouldn't work right away with only one bird having the mutation, but it would have to take place after several generations so that more and more had the mutation.

But in the end, the cardinal is still a cardinal. Variation, just like adaptation, doesn't in anyway equal evolution.

I could just as easily substitute the word "evolution" for "creation" in that sentence and tell you the same thing. Where's your proof that all the species came about the way you believe they did? I'm not saying that I can prove evolution, because as Clint said, both evolution and creation are theories. I'm just saying that nobody can provide any evidence for one more than the other.

Still apples and oranges my friend. The whole point of saying "look around you" is simple. Life is being created every second of every day. It is a known and observable process; that is fact not theory.

 

[TrpnBils]

Lack of repoduction only serves to prevent evolution.

You're right, which is why individuals that can't reproduce are wiped out of the gene pool. (Obviously it's different for humans because we can intervene sometimes, but I'm talking about in the wild with animals where there's no scientific intervention)

Still apples and oranges my friend. The whole point of saying "look around you" is simple. Life is being created every second of every day. It is a known and observable process; that is fact not theory.

Except Creationism is referring to the beginning of life itself, not the beginning of A life. And you can't prove how life originally started...nobody can. Not the Evolutionists, not the Creationists. That's why we're going to go around and around and around with this until Rich decides that 87,000 posts on the same topic without an answer is killing the bandwidth and gets rid of this...lol. :laugh:

 

[CAV]

Except Creationism is referring to the beginning of life itself, not the beginning of A life. And you can't prove how life originally started...nobody can.

Is it? Who says it is a non-reoccuring event? I submit to you that creation in an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures.

 

[Clint Boyer]

I feel I'm being ignored. :dgrin:

I submit to you that creation in an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures.

I'm not being antagonistic, I would just like to see the logic.
How does a living creature prove there is an all powerful entity?

 

[TrpnBils]

Is it? Who says it is a non-reoccuring event? I submit to you that creation in an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures.

I could just as easily tell you that I believe evolution is an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures...


...around and around and around.... :twohammer lol

 

[TrpnBils]

I feel I'm being ignored. :dgrin:



I'm not being antagonistic, I would just like to see the logic.
How does a living creature prove there is an all powerful entity?

Haha, by all means, jump in here for awhile... I need to pull myself away from this discussion long enough to study! :headbang:

 

[Clint Boyer]

Yeah, me too!

Snakes to feed and a bathroom vanity to build! I've got to quit goofing off!

 

[CAV]

To both of you....Clint!

To say "evolution is an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures" is a false premise. You can say it is true, but that doesn't make it so. There simply is no factual evidence that supports the evolution theory. It isn’t being proved in living creatures, and it hasn’t been proved in the fossil records.

Life is a never-ending creation. To deny such is simply ignorance of fact. You as an individual are here arguing with me because you and I were both created. The creation of life is a most basic scientific process in which cells divide and life results. I've never mention the existence of a higher power, as it is irrelevant to this discussion on life processes. The topic of divine existence does require faith, but again it is not tied to this argument. Creation is known, it is proven, it is on going and it is without end. As an educated person, how can you dispute it?

 

[Itsnowingcorns]

OK, my brain hurts after reading all of this thread, there's only so much a fourteen year old can take in ~ LOL. But here's something else, if the creation story is true, how can you explain the dinosaurs? We didn't exist when the dinosaurs did, we appeared a long time after they became extinct. According to the bible God created the earth and its contents in seven days, did he make a mistake with them and decide to have another go? I'm leaving it there.....

 

[Clint Boyer]

I'm an empty canvas, paint me a picture.

I don't want to arue against something, I want to be shown a reasonable idea to understand.

I have not promoted evolution.

Creation in and of it's self is irrefutable, no arguement there.

Egg, sperm, I get it.

 

[gardenmum]

You guys are debating the issue of "creationism" and "evolutionism" as two entities for the probable reason of life as we know it. But, I have always felt that BOTH are responsible and work together in life. I believe in creation - a creator - because I feel that "belief" deep inside. And, yes, I say "belief" because their is no way to physically prove that beyond a doubt so it has to come from an inner believing of its truth and also from just looking around me at the perfect complexity of life. But evolution is also a "not proven" road and I do believe what was created also evolves, but not into "new" species.

I do not believe, and find it hard to accept, that we are a descendent of the Apes. If that where so, were is the proof of it, where is the "missing link" between us? And why have Apes not evolved again over these thousands of years? And why would we not have some of the "evolved" intermediate species still alive today? It's not like the HAD to die out. The apes didn't die out and man didn't die out so why should the intermediate ones do so???? In fact, why is there no links between any one species and another? Some say that the horse evolved from "dawn horse" that was a small more dog like creature. Where is the proof of this, where is the connectors? Just because the horse has some bones that "could" have been exta toes? Why does it make that small creature the pre-horse species?

When I say I believe in evolution, I believe that we evolve in the sense of adaptation to our surroundings and the slight changes that help in that adaptation, but not in becoming a totally different species entirely. Yes, mutations occur and if that mutation allows for better advantages in breeding or feeding, than that mutation will be passed down as a "workable" mutation. IF that mutation somehow was better than the ones not mutated and allowed those that were mutated to survive a "wipe out" of the species, then yes, we would not have the original. BUT how far could/would that mutation occur? The originals may get wiped out due to the lack of the mutated form, whatever that form is, but how far removed could that mutation have been if they were still breeding/living with the original form? Maybe color difference? Length of neck? Whatever? But a totally different species?

We know that white/bright corns would have a disadvantage in the wild and would get "picked off" by predetors before they were able to pass their genes with much success. Granted. So, if you take a species of snake, let's say, and put that in a habitate that is NOT highly condusive to its survival, one of two things will happen. Either the entire species will get wiped out. Or, IF some of the species had a difference in color or pattern, or were smaller more speedy than most, and thus it allowed them to survive and not the rest, then indeed, the species would "change" and "evolve", due to gene selection, to its surroundings and thus you could "say" a new species came out of it. But is it new? The snake did NOT become a mouse. I know that is a far fetched analogy but it makes my point.

So, as I said, I believe in both. The created evolve.

 

[TrpnBils]

I do not believe, and find it hard to accept, that we are a descendent of the Apes. If that where so, were is the proof of it, where is the "missing link" between us?

I'm not positive on this, but if I remember right, the current theory is that the missing link wasn't around for very long and was outcompeted by a different form. This fits into the idea of "puntuated equilibrium"...the idea that some event causes several [relatively] rapid mutations and is followed by a long period of equilibrium.

They're still finding stuff that fits into the missing link question. Although this isn't a supposed missing link per-se, I think it's worth mentioning here. In 2002, a skull that was dated at 6-7 million years old was dug up in Africa. (Article Here) As the article says, apes were abundant 10 million years ago, but most humanoid remains have been shown to be 5 million years old at most. This skull shows traits of both apes and early humans. Another, more recent discovery was the fossilized remains of the "Flores Man" in Indonesia early last year. Of the genus Homo, and full grown at 3 feet tall, they're calling a new species. It was the first of its kind discovered, so I think it's pretty well established that we haven't dug up every possible fossil yet...so we might still find the link in our lifetime.

So, as I said, I believe in both. The created evolve.

Well said. I agree...

 

[TrpnBils]

Also, I have a question for the Creationist people. I'm not saying trying to push your buttons...I'm genuinely interested to hear what you think of this.

Radiometric and carbon dating.

Am I correct in thinking that if you take the Bible's story of creation and read it literally, humans and everything else would have only been around for a couple thousand years? If so, how do you explain the two process I mentioned above that date rocks or even fossils and organic matter back much further than that?

I've had similar discussions with a lot of people, but as far as I can remember I've never heard radiometric or carbon dating brought up, so I'm interested to see where this goes.