Evidence for God from Science

Despite what you claim you have little understanding

you love belittling people don't you. i have far more understanding thanyou think and address things you can not concieve, which is why you missed the point of the question.

you still haven't realized that it was a genetic question, that seems to be yor field of study and you want to turn every conversation into what you know and have studied. doesn't work that way.

you have to be able to comprehend the simple if you want to understand the complex.

You love to puff up your experience claiming that you debate

your personal attacks undermine your credibility, one thing you do not understand is that i do not lie, it is a sin and i wasn't going to do this but you can ask forum monk about my debates as he has read them on another forum.

you do not know what i have to endure at the hands of atheists, evolutionists, etc. nor can you comprehend the crap i have sift through to get to their real arguments and then spend time learning from God and books to refute their arguments.

i do not do a henry morris debate, i go beyond the surface and dig out where evolution has its fatal flaws and show that the theory is just a figment of darwin's imagination.

i ended the conversation because you could not grasp a very simple question. continuing would have been futile.

archaeologist wrote:i go beyond the surface and dig out where evolution has its fatal flaws

This is ridiculous. YOu haven't even addressed those points, which at at the very heart of natural selection. You haven't gone beyond the surface with me, which is why I have come to the conclusion that you can't ....I am very happy to be proven wrong. Simply address them.

Not meaning to demean, but YOU have placed yourself out here and have stated your expertise....yet you refuse to discuss actual points. Until you have done so, I cannot help but think that you can't. Prove me wrong. I have given, point by point, postulates which the scientists have in every college textbook...prove me wrong. PLease, I will be happy to admit your expertise in the matter...when you have addressed those points. Not hard.

1) Would you agree that species in a population have various phenotypes? There are differences in charactieristics. There may be polar bears with longer claws or some with shorter claws. Some finches with bigger beaks and some with smaller?


2) Do you agree that these characteristics may be controlled by genes. That is, some of us have genes for blue eyes and some for brown eyes? The finches with bigger beaks have genes that code for bigger beaks, conversely the finches with smaller beaks have the genes that code for smaller beaks. NOTICE THAT NOWHERE AM I SAYING THAT THESE ARE MISTAKES BY GOD. God designed some of us with some genes and others with other genes.

3) Would you agree that these characteristics governed by genes SOMETIMES fit the environment better. than other characteristics. The larger beaks can exert exert more force than smaller beaks and thus break open larger seeds. Conversely, the smaller beaks can open seeds with less energy needed to built the beak. Polar bears with longer claws may be able to break open thicker ice.

4) 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

5) Would these changes in the environment mean that some animals (or plants) within the population might have characteristics that fit the resources available. Again, some years the finches with larger beaks might fit the bill (oh, that was bad!) whereas other years with more rain different seeds, smaller beaks might suffice.

6) 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. Maybe this year the rainfall is different and the opposite matings occur. the next generation will switch back to smaller beaks.

7) Now, whether or not these environmental changes occur as a result of normal shifts in weather patterns or the influence of man, the animals (and plants) will survive or reproduce according to their matching the environment. 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. It is selection, but it is selection brought about by our influence (bolded so it is clear that this is my answer) it is both. It does not have to be one or the other despite your insistence.

Now, all of these are the basic elements (some other stuff about competition and resources but we'll start there) of natural selection. The evolutionist may claim that this is without God but that is THEIR statement. Nothing in here excludes God. Notice that right now there is nothing about changing species. Evolutionists will include a last postulate which is the "over time, mutations build up and new selective pressures may bring about speciation" . This is where the evolutionists and I part ways. At this time I am not convinved that mutations have the power to have brought about the changes they claim. However, God would have created species to be able to withstand minor fluctuations in their niches because of the differences in genes (NOT MISTAKES!) allows for minor changes in repoductive succes.

Now, I have never strayed from the topic these all have to do with populations, selection, and genetics. Why don't you go through each of these points and maybe we can be clearer about what you disagree with.

Still waiting....Let's actually DISCUSS these instead of you saying you have the ability to debunk evolution....do it!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.
.
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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

then you have the mitigating circumstances which play a part which does not act according to genetics

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.

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.

Ha!!! Soil!!!

That was a unintended pun!!

archaeologist wrote:

Despite what you claim you have little understanding

you love belittling people don't you. i have far more understanding thanyou think and address things you can not concieve, which is why you missed the point of the question.

you still haven't realized that it was a genetic question, that seems to be yor field of study and you want to turn every conversation into what you know and have studied. doesn't work that way.

you have to be able to comprehend the simple if you want to understand the complex.

You love to puff up your experience claiming that you debate

your personal attacks undermine your credibility, one thing you do not understand is that i do not lie, it is a sin and i wasn't going to do this but you can ask forum monk about my debates as he has read them on another forum.

you do not know what i have to endure at the hands of atheists, evolutionists, etc. nor can you comprehend the [poop] i have sift through to get to their real arguments and then spend time learning from God and books to refute their arguments.

i do not do a henry morris debate, i go beyond the surface and dig out where evolution has its fatal flaws and show that the theory is just a figment of darwin's imagination.

i ended the conversation because you could not grasp a very simple question. continuing would have been futile.

long story made short.

I think she meant the polar bears will grow gills and fins when the ice melts.

Joke...right?

Been enoigh misunderstandings around here, worried that anything may be misunderstood.

zoegirl wrote: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.

I find this a little tough to follow since I am not sure if your 50/50, 60/40, etc statistics refer to a breeding pair or a population. In any case, if I am not mistaken, the driving factor is selection pressure which one key factor Darwinian evolution described as "survival of the fittest". Based on these principles, its not the numbers of young born who have long or short beaks. Rather it is ability of the better suited beak style to achieve reproductive maturity that increases the probability that one particular beak style will eventually overwhelm the other, genetically. So while your statement about the probabilities may or may not be correct, they really don't directly apply to evolution. (But maybe your point was not evolution - just genetics 101)

zoegirl wrote:Joke...right?

Been enoigh misunderstandings around here, worried that anything may be misunderstood.

yes, I do not side with you on mixing God and evolution. but I think
you a one smart cookie.

Forum Monk wrote:

zoegirl wrote: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.

I find this a little tough to follow since I am not sure if your 50/50, 60/40, etc statistics refer to a breeding pair or a population. In any case, if I am not mistaken, the driving factor is selection pressure which one key factor Darwinian evolution described as "survival of the fittest". Based on these principles, its not the numbers of young born who have long or short beaks. Rather it is ability of the better suited beak style to achieve reproductive maturity that increases the probability that one particular beak style will eventually overwhelm the other, genetically. So while your statement about the probabilities may or may not be correct, they really don't directly apply to evolution. (But maybe your point was not evolution - just genetics 101)

It was meant to be a population. SO sorry! 50% of the population, 50% of the population one generation, then 60%40%.

It is differential reproduction and survival
It is both the reproductive potential and survivability. Survival of the fittest is really not the complete story. For example, a finch could live ten years but may not produce as many young as one who only lived 5 years. I agree with you and your definition is almost accurate, not sure how my example doesn't agree with postulates for selection.

It is the number of young born based on the percentage of those breeding the previous year.. If a breeding population of finches with lets say two types of beak sizes exists in a population, if one beak size fits the environment that year, then those finches both reproduce more and survive more, influencing the number of those beak genes in the next generation. So if you start with a 50%50% ratio but during that generation more large beak finches reproduce, then the proportion of large beak genes in that population increases and the proportion of small beak gene decreases inthe next generation. Selective pressure (seeds) infleunced who was able to match those seeds. THose with the genes coding for the proper phenotype will both survive and reproduc more, producing more young in the next generation.

I can get actual numbers for you....I am fading fast tonght...midnight and time for bed!!

Thanks for pointing out unclear statements
In Christ

Please don't think I'm nitpicking -

zoegirl wrote:I agree with you and your definition is almost accurate, not sure how my example doesn't agree with postulates for selection.

Because you did not mention survivability as the importance of beak size.

It is the number of young born based on the percentage of those breeding the previous year.. If a breeding population of finches with lets say two types of beak sizes exists in a population, if one beak size fits the environment that year, then those finches both reproduce more and survive more, influencing the number of those beak genes in the next generation. So if you start with a 50%50% ratio but during that generation more large beak finches reproduce, then the proportion of large beak genes in that population increases and the proportion of small beak gene decreases inthe next generation. Selective pressure (seeds) infleunced who was able to match those seeds. THose with the genes coding for the proper phenotype will both survive and reproduc more, producing more young in the next generation.

Ok, basically here you have said exactly what I said. In a population, the offspring with proper adaptation are more likely to survive to reproductive maturity. Hence, it is their traits which will passed to the succeding generation. However, I do not believe that the natural variation of seed size due to one year being more rainy than another is a factor in selection. This is a normal statistical variance. Only when the mean is driven outside of control limits will a change likely occur.

Further, I think the discussion of an out of control process (i.e. climate change, population isolation, etc.) producing selection pressure is a topic which warrants further discussion. But perhaps at another time or thread.

Never said there weren't outside forces at work

no but they way you wrote gave the impression of implication.

surely you aren't disputing the meaning of genes

what i am saying is that genes aren't responsible for everything that takes place in life.

PLease explain what you mean when you say that the environment is built for all when even the environment fluctuates at times.

as far as i am concerned, fluctuations are all part of the whole. when a drought hits an area you have several choices and it doesn't invlove genes.

But with regards to your polar bear question, the arctic ice is changing over many years.

this is where you misread the statement, bears are drowning right now. the question i posed had nothing to do with genetics.

YOu asked about the changes due to warming

no i didn't.

you are talking extremes here

not at all, though extremes are part of the situation.

Where are you getting that genetics can be immune to poisons

i am going off your assumptions.

But please tell me why God would not have created species without some flexibility to withstand some changes

because His purpose for each animal may not include such changes.

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

they had a better one than i or my cousins did.

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.

but this would boil down to which gene was active (citing your hair example) not the enviornmental influence. it has nothing to do with which bird mated more often or was more fertile, or where the food is. that isn't natural selection either because the birds have an equal opportunity to be born with either beak.

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.

again you avoid answering the question, trying to turn it into what you want to talk about instead of dealing with what i propose. i am not talking about the growing grain, that is a side issue. answer the question without trying to avoid what is being asked. it is my question and not yours.

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

i disgree with this example for it is calling for a very controlled process when there are many reasons why there would be a shortage of genes and they aren't genetic related. too many assumptions are in play here which depend upon ideal situations. you previous sentence is evidence of that:

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.

first you say two genes govern, then you say you are not sure, then you say many genes. you just blew your whole argument right there. you really do not know which it is.i will throw you a bone here:

Genes are the materail that God has used to build us

i already know this. DNA contains far more information than we will ever realize and how God used it to implement what is stored in them, i doubt we will ever know here on earth. BUT that does not mean everything is gene related, if it were then we would be mere robots subject to what our genes tell us to do. is there adaptability? not in the evolutionary sense as you would wish for that would undermine what God said about His work through creation.

God cannot undermine HImself or then we would not have a God to believe in, everything goes according to what He says and humanistic invention is not part of the equation.

Forum Monk wrote:Please don't think I'm nitpicking -

zoegirl wrote:I agree with you and your definition is almost accurate, not sure how my example doesn't agree with postulates for selection.

Because you did not mention survivability as the importance of beak size.

Oh!!, sorry! (shouldn't be writing anything after 11pm!! ) Yes, the beak size correlates with whether they can open seeds. They have done long range studies on this actually. YOu can read it in a book entitled The Beak of the Finch With variable rain each season, the trees produce seeds that are different sizes and different thickness (I will check further, I may be missing a detail). Those that can open seeds that are tougher then survive and reproduce more and influence the gene frequency in the enxt generation.

forum monk wrote:

It is the number of young born based on the percentage of those breeding the previous year.. If a breeding population of finches with lets say two types of beak sizes exists in a population, if one beak size fits the environment that year, then those finches both reproduce more and survive more, influencing the number of those beak genes in the next generation. So if you start with a 50%50% ratio but during that generation more large beak finches reproduce, then the proportion of large beak genes in that population increases and the proportion of small beak gene decreases inthe next generation. Selective pressure (seeds) infleunced who was able to match those seeds. THose with the genes coding for the proper phenotype will both survive and reproduc more, producing more young in the next generation.

Ok, basically here you have said exactly what I said. In a population, the offspring with proper adaptation are more likely to survive to reproductive maturity. Hence, it is their traits which will passed to the succeding generation. However, I do not believe that the natural variation of seed size due to one year being more rainy than another is a factor in selection. This is a normal statistical variance. Only when the mean is driven outside of control limits will a change likely occur.

In some circumstance, yes, but in this long range study, they did find a difference in seed size and number over the years dependent on rainfall.

forum monk wrote: Further, I think the discussion of an out of control process (i.e. climate change, population isolation, etc.) producing selection pressure is a topic which warrants further discussion. But perhaps at another time or thread.

Actually, I am not referring to climate change in this example (although ceratinly that would have an effect) This is simply normal fluctuations given the natural weather changes.

Yes, I agree that we do not understand fully the intricacies of this process. I have don't think that this provides the mechanism for large scale changes. And it seems, as I have mentioned before, that this is simply a measure of providing stability to a population in their niche. God, in HIs wisdom, created these measures to match His environments. And, of course, we have the fall to consider.

archaeologist wrote: bears are drowning right now

Please provide the source, I would like to read further.

archaeologist wrote: Quote:
you are talking extremes here


not at all, though extremes are part of the situation.

Quote:
Where are you getting that genetics can be immune to poisons


i am going off your assumptions.

I posited that MINOR fluctuations in rainfall or amount of food

YOu said if all food disappears, then all die

Different scenarios....address my scenario and mine only....yours is obvious....yes, they all die.

My statement NEVER included anything about genes being impervious to poisons or diseases.

archaeologist wrote: but this would boil down to which gene was active (citing your hair example) not the enviornmental influence. it has nothing to do with which bird mated more often or was more fertile, or where the food is. that isn't natural selection either because the birds have an equal opportunity to be born with either beak.

I am trying to figure out why you are not getting the relationship between the environment and the seeds...

More rain different size seeds different seeds require different force from beaks different beaks in population some beaks mean finche feed better these reproduce and survive better those genes for those beaks get passed onto the next generation with more frequency than finches with other beaks

No, they don't have an equal opprtunity of being born! IF one phenotype of beak allows the birds to eat better than other with a different on, then they reproduce more and survive more.

archaeologist wrote: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?

Let;s try this again. YOu are using a situation that has various forces at work. Look, you WANT a certain answer, you have in your mind such a lock on what you think is the right answer that you don't even allow me to answer what I THINK. We are going to go back to the NO IT ISNT, YES IT IS, unless you calm down and let me address the question and then you address why you think it is wrong. NOw I am going to answer again and do not respond by simply telling me I am wrong.

I call it a bad question. You need to include another choice.
I call the seeds that grow in the good soil are resonding to the right environmental signals.

Now, I gave you an answer, address my example of the different responses even if everything is controlled.
DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE FACT THAT THESE SEEDS MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT PHENOTYPES.

archaeologist wrote:i disgree with this example for it is calling for a very controlled process when there are many reasons why there would be a shortage of genes and they aren't genetic related. too many assumptions are in play here which depend upon ideal situations. you previous sentence is evidence of that:

Shortage of genes? Explain, please.

Already covered the realtionship to genes. I have said in response to forum monk that there are furstrations to testing this. We do need to be careful to eliminate other factors. But you want to use the fact that there are multiple factors for a reason to dismiss ALL possibility of the influence of genes. Doens't work like this.

archaeologist wrote: you say two genes govern, then you say you are not sure, then you say many genes. you just blew your whole argument right there. you really do not know which it is.i will throw you a bone here:

Again, you do not read my posts. FOr every gene they have, they have one from mom and one from dad. YOu seemed to think that using your dad;s example of dark hair somehow discredits genetic inheritance.

archaeologist wrote: that is only common sense but does not mean that it will happen either. my dad had black hair, no child has black hair

BUt this falls fully in line with genetic inheritance. He had two genes, one for dark hair and one for light hair. You and your siblings received the one for light. Finches in a populations may be homozygous for one beak size, heterozygous, having one of each gene, or homozygous for the other gene.

There is a mathmatical equation for this. The Hardy-Weinberg equation for population genetics allows us to examine the frequencies. If p = the the frequency for the dominant gene and q= the frequency of the recessive gene, then we can find the frequency of each of the phenotypes. p2 will correspond to those individuals with homozygous dominant individuals. THese finches can only donate a large beak gene to their offspring. 2pq will correspond to heterozygous individuals. These are individuals (like your dad) that have both alleles for a gene, one for the large beak and one for the small. q2 (this is meant to be an exponent, haven't figured out...) will be the homozygous recessive individual. Now, those heterozygous individuals are the ones that dilute the change because they can gieve either gene to the offspring. However, if more p2 (only give p allele) and more 2pq (could give either) survive, then they will donate more p alleles than the q2 will donate.

Yikes, just realized the time. In a rush here and just realized the time. Sorry, will continue with some actual examples, I have to get ready, my AP bio students are coming over for review session before their practice exam.