archaeologist wrote:Now, all of these are the basic elements (some other stuff about competition and resources but we'll start there) of natural selection
here is your mistake. this relies upon an assumption that outside forces which have nothing to do with genes are absent.
Never said there weren't outside forces at work
archaeologist wrote:
Do you agree that these characteristics may be controlled by genes
actually i don't here. this statement implies that genes have absolute control over a animal's or human's body. nutrientionists would disagree with you on that idea. as we know from the starvation in africa, genes cannot work to their full potential if the body does not receive the proper diet.
Read my statement, I said they are controlled, I never said that environment doesn't have an effect. But, said another way, do you have genes that cause your eyes to be blue, or green, or hazel?
archaeologist wrote:
plus it assumes that genes are immune from the affects of disease, which they are not. one of the problems with evolution is that it relies on assumption not complete and provable data.
I never said they are not immune, Good grief, this is basic biology, nobody disputes this...
archaeologist wrote:
the question then can be asked, are the differences caused by genes or by the impurities that entered the world at The Fall of Man?
Good question!! I, too, wonder what the fall did. However, surely you aren't disputing the meaning of genes. I mean, plenty of evidence that genes cause our physical differences. Then the question becomes what the fall has done to these genes.
archaeologist wrote:
Would you agree that these characteristics governed by genes SOMETIMES fit the environment better. than other characteristics
that is like saying, if you shoot a shotgun filled with buckshot, you would SOMETIMES hit a target. so no i wouldn't. the enviorment is built for all not a select few at select times.
No, I diagree. I included the sometimes because I agree that it doesn't always happen. PLease explain what you mean when you say that the
environment is built for all when
even the environment fluctuates at times. Sometimes we get lots of rain, sometimes we don't
archaeologist wrote:
a volcanic eruption kills indiscriminantly which tells us it is not genes that allowed survival but location at the time of the blast.
so this point again is based upon assumptions that do not work in a imperfect world.
Ah, I was wondering if this was the cause of the misunderstanding. Yes IMMEDIATE and disastrous events kill indiscriminatley. Don't disagree. But with regards to your polar bear question, the arctic ice is changing over many years. We're not talking about an event where the ice suddenly collapses and all of the bears drown. YOu asked about the changes due to warming, which will still be years (maybe not many, but several), which means that over several generations, maybe some bears survive better than others.
archaeologist wrote:
Do you agree that environments can fluctuate with regards to resources? Some years more rain, more seeds, more salmon, less salmon, more wind, less wind, less oxygen dissolved in water...etc
not really, because if the food runs out, it runs out. having longer claws, longer beaks does not help here because if there is no food no one eats no matter how big,long, strong a species is.
Ok, you are talking extremes here. Obviously if food runs out everybody dies....
I am not referring to extremes. If we see that God's creation has natrual variations, then some years we may have more salmon but others we may have less. What about the years where rainfall varies so that seed size changes?
archaeologist wrote:
then this assumes that genetics can be immune to all poisons as well, which is not true. plus it assumes that genetics can replace the situation of having help. does genetics bring a friend along to pull one out of trouble or even a stranger?--no.
This is a very puzzling statement. Genes code for proteins. Some poisons may work by interacting with proteins. Where are you getting that genetics can be immune to poisons? (although antibiotic resistant bacteria do have genes that code for proteins that prevent the action of those antibiotics) Or that genetics excludes our needing help
Genes are the materail that God has used to build us. These instructions contain our blueprint. But I would certainly agree that we aremore than the sum of our parts. I would appreciate you elaborating on this.
Archaeologist wrote:
this is a very generalized viewpoint looking at the ideal not the reality. if a land is in trouble, then others bring food in, which is not a genetic activated activity but a spiritual one. the environment altered once is altered again by outside forces not acting on genetic response.
All right, that should be OUR response, and I perfectly agree, we are to uphold and care for both people and the environment. But please tell me why God would not have created species without some flexibility to withstand some changes.
Archaeologist wrote:
Would these changes in the environment mean that some animals (or plants) within the population might have characteristics that fit the resources available
not at all. this is assuming that the animals with the right genetic structure to do as you say are actually present in the area and are affected by the changes.
Let;s assume away!! These were my points. Tell my why this is such a stretch. Sure, if none are there, they will die....but if they are...what do you think?
archaeologist wrote:
If the finches with larger beaks have more babies that year and conversely the finches with smaller beaks have fewer babies that year, then they pass down their genes for larger beaks and then the next generation of finches will have a higher frequency of finches with larger beaks
that is only common sense but does not mean that it will happen either. my dad had black hair, no child has black hair, my grandfather and grandmother were short but the majority of my relatives, including me, are tall.
Ah but this IS what the selection states. The evolutionists simply say this happend without God. I am saying that God would have designed the species with genetic flexibility.
To tackle the genetics of hair color. There are two different genes for hair color. One for melanin, and one for the pigment for red hair (oh....can i remeber this? trichosiderin?) The example you state with your dad is classic gentics. You dad only has one gene for black hair. Thus he passed down his gene for lighter hair to you and the rest of the family. My dad has black/dark brown hair and my mom has strawberry blond. Brother has red, sister has brown, sister has auburn, brother has brown, sister has dark blond, I have blond. My dad only has one gene for dark hair and he carries the gene for light hair. My mom has the blond hair gene and the red hair gene. We have quite a variety.
Height is something that is both genetically and environmentally influenced. Your parents and grandparents probably did have the genes for height but with different diet (or perhaps those pesky growth hormones in those cows
) (by the way, never said environment doesn't influence the full potential of the expression of the genes)
archaeologist wrote:
so i do not think you could prove to me that large beaked birds will beget 100% of their offspring with large beaks. off course this idea is again based upon the assumption that large beaked birds will only mate with large beaked birds.
Oh!....see this is where you don't understand genetics completely. It is not that large beaked birds will beget 100% large beaked birds (unless they are purebreeding and wild populations would usually not be). I never claimed this an I would never want to prove this to you. See, they have two genes for beak size as well (maybe more...not sure)...but however many genes govern beak size, they have two one from mom, one from dad.
It is that they will pass more of the genes than the ones with short. It is a relative change. Generation 1 may have 50/50, Generation 2 may have 60/40. The following year may be 65/35. The following year may be back to 55/45. The gene frequencies change.
archaeologist wrote:
then you have the mitigating circumstances which play a part which does not act according to genetics
Absolutely, not to mention that genes can control and influence the activity of other genes!! so trying to test how these gene frequencies change over time gets tricky. And this is where they must be absoltuely sure they are testing for the right thing.
archaeologist wrote:
Thus, (AGAIN! in fact I think three times now) IF we are changing the environment of the polar bears and IF this is change is too drastic for the polar bears (ie they do not have the necessary genes to allow some of them to match the environment) then they will die
no no no. it was not a genetic question!!!!!the polar bear question i asked has nothing to do with genetics. you are assuming that evolution is true in some form and adaption of body parts is available for all situations. that is not true.
you are a one thought person who cannot see what is being asked but trying to prove one's pet theory applies to everything and it doesn't. everything you spoke on here is based upon generalizations, idealism and assumptions NOT reality.
let me try again:
a farmer sows his crops by hand (plausible because the amish do this)and as he casts his seeds out on the field. some fall on good soil, others on hard ground, while still others in the rocks or weeds? only the seeds that fell on good soil grew. What do you call that?--- micro-evolution at work? genetic activity? bad aim? a bad throwing arm? or over-seeding because the farmer knows not all the grain is going to grow?
HINT: it is not a genetic question.
Ok, let me try to be perfectly clear. No one is disputing the simple fact that the seeds that fall on the good ground will sprout. THis is silly. (It is still genetic activity, though
the plants have genes that provide instructions to repond to environmental conditions. had to throw that in for you
)
YOu really want me to avoid those pesky genes
But bear with me....we are doing well!!
BUT, one criticism, there are multiple varibles. YOu want to come down to only one cause. But there are others. Let me provide an example.
If I plant 100 beans in containers controlling all plant requirements, providing plenty of water and plenty of fertilizer, plenty of sunlight and all have the same conditions. How would you explain that some grow faster, some grow taller, some have bigger leaves? This happens...aren't these due to genetic differences? I have eleminated all other variables. So it is possible that some plants have genes that allow them to grow in slightly drier soils.
We are off to a good start. let's not soil this with accusations of pet theories. Let;s continue discussing amicably.