Evolution

lol, nice.

 

Did I say it was? No.

 

Actually no, I don't. It was just a figure of speech.

 

Well excuse me for misunderstanding, but it can certainly be expected with me trying to decipher your misguided approach to evolution. You seemed to be saying that for evolution to occur, both the male and the female would have had to have the same genetic mutation before they mated, or something like that, or otherwise they wouldn't be able to mate.

 

What about many small mutations over time? One mutation doesn't necessarily make a person unable to mate. One mutation usually doesn't change a species and if it did it would most likely be a dissadvatage. A germ line mutation that is dominant in a parent can be passed down to a child and if it is beneficial, that mutation will most likely continue to be passed down. Blue eyes were started by a gene mutation. I'm not sure why it was passed down. Maybe blue eyes are better with less light ....or .........maybe people with blue eyes are better looking and can attract a mate better. j/k.

 

Please excuse me for not using the proper “evolutionary terminology”, frankly, I don’t much care what they are calling it now a days.

I said; “every step up the evolutionary ladder”, would needed to be accompanied by two mutations, meaning that a step up the ladder would mean a change in species, not just a change in eye color but a fish no longer being a fish or lizard no longer being a lizard, which is usually accompanied with a change in the number of chromosomes and with that change comes a corresponding difficulty in mating with a creature that has a different number of chromosomes. This step up the ladder didn’t happen just once but supposedly thousands of times and so that means that each time it happened these newly mutated creatures would no longer be able to mate with the creatures that birthed them and now must have a creature to mate with that has the same number of chromosomes, another newly mutated creature and that is the point I was making. How many times can this coincidence happen, that two creatures with the same number of chromosomes, one male and one female, are mutated out at the same time and the same place so they can procreate and not just have sterile hybrid offspring?

And like I say, the answer I usually get is we’re here so it must have happened.

 

I looked into mule reproduction like you mentioned. A horse and a donkey have different chromosomes and they are able to mate to produce mules and hinnys that are usually sterile, but some are fertile. So it is possible for species with different chromosomes to mate and produce fertile offspring.

 

It isn't your terminology that needs excused but rather your entire conceptualization of evolution.
First of all, there is no need for a mutation to occur simultaneously in two seperate individuals in order to be passed down. Secondly, a mutation certainly does not indicate a change in the number of chromosomes.
That's like saying people from Africa must be a different species than people from Europe because of skin color.

 

Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. Of the hybrids between these two species, a mule is easier to obtain than a hinny (the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey). All male mules and most female mules are infertile. (here’s hoping for evolutions sake that if only one mutant is born it’s a female cause if it’s male we’ll have to wait another million years)

Several female mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey. Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world. There are no recorded cases of fertile mule stallions. Mules and Hinnies have 63 chromosomes that are a mixture of one from each parent. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos.

And if we take into consideration, when talking about mules, that we’re talking about two established species(that are forced to breed by man), where if two don’t work out you can always get two more and not just a one off copy mutation that is not being forced to breed by anybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule

 

Please keep up with the conversation, Monkey Boy doesn't seem to be having any problem.

 

.......but you have to admit it is possible. All it takes is one mutant to sucessfully breed and produce a fertile female. We are only one chromosome pair away from primates. Given a 5-10 million year time frame the chances get much better. Also, it may not be a rare as you think. Both men and women with down syndrome (47 chromosomes) have produced offspring. So men can also be fertile.

Well, who else would a mutant be likely to breed with besides its closest relative and breeding doesn't have to be forced. I used to have a dog that would breed with anything and my bird likes to breed with shoes, hands and feet.

Btw: Thanks for directing me to mule reproduction. Very interesting.

 

Admit it is possible? Perhaps.

But one chance may be all you’ll get.

Yes, perhaps the chances get better but have you given much thought to what those chances(odds) are and the fact those chances have take place each step up the ladder, perhaps thousands of times.

And it may not be as common as you think

Sorry to hear about your dog and bird but I’ve heard that after years of therapy they will not get any better but they will be happier with their problems.

As for who else would a mutant be likely to breed with, it’s hard to say perhaps no one?

You’re welcome, I thought it was interesting too and thought you might like it.

 

Yes, they cannot mate, I agree.

But the anti-evolutionist argument goes: Yes, you can have variation (read: species) within a "kind" (Chihuahua, wolf, fox, great dane...all dogs), but you cannot move from one "kind" to another (monkeys cannot become humans).


"Kinds" are defined by anti-evolutionists not by any specific scientific category (like species, genus, phylum). Kind can be whatever they want it to be.

for example, if they deny human evolution, they will say that everything from Lucy to Neanderthal are either actual humans or are in the "Ape Kind", and therefore cannot possibly ever become humans.

 

I seem to remember trying to make this point forever ago to someone, I forget who. It was something about species from different groups being unable to mate, and this proving something, and me trying to point out that if the only thing that defines those groups is the ability to mate or not mate outside them, those groups are essentially arbitrary and irrelevant. I think that was how it went. Either way it was infuriating and I hope you don't end up having to have the same conversation.

 

The Bible does not define kind by a specific scientific category (like species, genus, phylum) so when talking about Bible kinds, the only distinction appears to be the inability of one kind to become another kind, therefore the "anti-evolutionists" are limited in their ability to fit kind, to a specific scientific category (like species, genus, phylum) .

 

The odds are probably very low for it to happen, but it only has to happen once for a primate to become a human. It's like winning the lottery by buying millions of tickets. How would you determine the odds anyway besides just saying that it seems to be low?

I think of it more like a tree than a ladder. Multiple species are evolving at the same time. What source did you get thousands of times from?

Perhaps, but evolution just fits in with what I see around me everyday. Everything is constantly changing.

LOL. I never considered therapy before.

The chances of an adult being a virgin is around 4%

 

Yeah, I can see how futile a disscussion would be with them if you couldn't even agree on how to define kinds/species. They might say foxes and dogs are the same kind dispite fact that foxes have a different number of chromosomes.

 

I'm curious: how do creationists/intelligent design people explain mutations?

 

Mutations, they often claim, are almost always negative (not true) and therefore positive mutations are so rare that evolution is not possible. Most mutations are actually neutral.

A little thing about categories. I am a Creationist, and technically and Intelligent Design-ist...just not like what the popular media presents. I believe the universe, all life, and myself were created and designed by God. Does this me I have God's fingerprints on my DNA, no. It means that through the natural processes God ordained and sustains, the Universe and all life were created and most likely evolved. You can believe in Design and evolution.

 

lol u serious?
Your entire understanding of evolution is skewed, and I'm convinced you have done this in a conscious effort to prevent yourself from seeing the logic behind it.
And now you want to bring up "keeping up".
Please.