belgian blue cattle. its a mutation that inhibits production of myostatin to produce more muscle. the cows dont necessarily survive "better," but theyre bred to exploit this mutation and produce more meat.

doesnt only happen with cows.



similar mutation in humans has been found:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5278028/

of course, people are already at work, trying to harness this power to use it at will for things like muscular dystrophy and body building.

__________________

1. I knew that.
2. I knew that.
3. I knew that.
4. No. Anything that would could design us would be called a god. I've seen Christians do it.
5. I knew that.

So, can you teach me the specifics of ID? I'm here because I want to learn.

Also, we know why information about evolution is missing. The dinosaurs didn't write diaries, and 99.99% of living creatures are completely destroyed when they die. Probablity says that there are going to be a lot of species that leave absolutely no trace. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, but it means we can't know everything.

this "lame definition" came from dictionary. com. tis also known as the accepted official definition. but i guess you dont like it because it doesnt fit your idea of a definition..

wheres the proof for it? where does mutation fit into the picture? how do you know that the "mutation" wasnt in the animals gene to begin with? adaption and success is not proof of anything because they can happen without evolution. also, mutation cam happen without evolution.

natural selection and evolution are not exclusive to each other. also, theres no proof that the peppered moth didnt exist before the white moth. so, it might have nothing to do with mutation but more with spreading the already existing gene. you dont know if that gene was created at that time.

again, natural selection is not exclusive to evolution. i dont think you realize this but natural selection is another theory. adaptation is a passive phase. changing of a gene to meet the environmental changes is an active phase. they are different things.
actually, there needs to be a lot more evidence then just circumstantial evidence. you and i both know that in order for evolution to be true, all circumstantial evidence also has to be true. youre basing your unproven idea on a bunch of other unproven ideas, and then say that its fact... theres a reason why evolution has never been proven.. because theres no proof of it.


also, could you explain the evolutionary responses that are required in order for an animal to go a drastic evolutionary change? can you point to 3 generations of an animal one before change, one during, and one after? also, the human environment has greatly changed since the caveman days, yet were still the same. we still have the same instincts and the same basic structures. why havent we changed? if evolution were true, it would have to be true to us as well. and if evolutionary responses were true, then the major animal that would have been affected by this would be humans. how is it that the one animal that has changed its environment the most out of any animal has shown no evolutionary response to this change?

also, why are you not acknowledging that evolution is just an unproven theory? do you think that there hasnt been enough study on it? any of the phenomenons we see that is explained by evolution can also have, currently unknown, theories to explain them. do you not agree?

and a final question... do you think evolution could be wrong?

thats why i said that helped the animal. what youre showing has nothing to do with survival of the fittest..

(*)(*)(*)(*) that a muscle ass dog!

wrong.. ID doesnt have to include a designer in order for it to be true.

intelligent design states that the universe is not random, but has laws that govern it. in fact, if you knew what all the laws were and where every particle was along with any energy, you could predict what would happen to it in a billion years. thats because if an atom follows all the laws of the universe, there is only one path it can take, and thats the one thats dictated by the laws. the same goes for anything else. this is a hard concept for many to understand because so many people believe in free will.

also, there are forces that we dont know about yet. just like gravity was not known(that we know of) before newton but it still existed. its possible for intelligence to be a force like that and just like gravity tends to accumulate in or around matter and energy, intelligence may be the same. just like a planet has much more gravity then just space dust found in a nebula in the same volume as the planet, intelligence might be found more abundantly in living organisms. of course, these are all just theories, just like evolution, but theyre worth investigating. but apparently the science community is pretty set on evolution so theres no point to looking at other ideas right?

youre assuming that the evidence for evolution is there but we just dont know about it. why are you so sure?

You need to be more attentive when you read. I said lame "deflection" not "definition." Here is why your deflection is so lame: You've arbitrarily decided that bacteria don't count because they aren't in the kingdom 'Animalia,' a pointless distinction since we are talking about genes and genetic mutation leading to beneficial evolution. They have genes, have mutated, and are stronger now because of their adaptation to hostile environments. Clearly you had to go to Dictionary.com to look for definitions to take a semantic issue with my example since it fully answers your question. That is why your deflection is so lame. Everyone knows it.

If you want to argue that you are exactly the same as Cro-Magnon Man, I won't argue... Have you ever been to the Museum of Natural History in New York? Have you ever read anything about the Galapagos Islands? Origin of the Species? Charles Darwin? The Beagle?

Natural selection drives evolution. Natural selection occurs whenever there is a choice between two or more candidates of the same species. If you are willing to accept that there are mechanisms that cause mutation such as ultra-violet light hitting DNA, then natural selection is going to play its role in whether or not that mutation is successful. If the mutation causes a problem, it never propagates. If the mutation causes a benefit, natural selection honors and incorporates it. Traits can be bred out of existence if their benefit does not play into natural selection. If, for example, it was not soot but the total elimination of birch trees that had caused the moths to selectively become black to blend into a different tree, and those birch trees never returned to the environment, eventually after enough generations, the moth's genes would purge the white trait through the natural selection of its opposite trait.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Read this.

I'm having a hard time even answering this. The mechanisms are there, undisputed. Answer these questions for me: Yes or no?

Do you believe that ultra-violet light can damage DNA?

Do you believe that natural selection occurs?

Do you believe that a specific environment can cause traits to become stronger or weaker?

Do you believe that radiation of a species is possible?

You want to see evolution happen before your eyes; this is your final hurdle. It takes longer than you are willing to give. That is your problem, not the theory's.

I'm curious, what do you say about this chain?

Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo georgicus, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo cepranensis, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo sapiens.


The drastic evolutionary responses you want are exactly the ones I've given you: Natural selection, mutation, radiation. As I said, your stumbling block is nothing more than the amount of time it takes. The human environment has changed drastically only in the last 200 years-- the blink of an eye evolutionarily speaking. Before that, it simply plodded along with everything else. Three generations of an animal: Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo Sapien.

The mechanisms of evolution are there, in plain sight, being studied, right now. Sure, I'll concede that there might be some unknown phenomena that causes evolution, but that statement serves no purpose and no one. It's a worthless statement.

No. Evolution is exhaustively recorded in the fossil record. It doesn't attempt to answer why things are, only how they've come to look and operate as they do. In my opinion, it is proven.

__________________
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: RIDE A BIKE

lol i find it funny how you waste your time trying to prove something that has been unproven for hundreds of years. do you know how many times and how many biologists tried to prove evolution? just about every single one, yet they have gotten nowhere... you faith in evolution is no different then a religious persons faith in god. theres no proof for either..


you can go ahead and live your life with a closed mind if you want but i chose not to..


still waiting for that animal btw... i guess you couldnt find one huh? kinda hard to prove something thats most likely incorrect isnt it?

and do you really want to suggest that evolution is fueled by mutation? has there ever been a bacteria that mutated into an animal? no.. so your evolution theory might(still highly unlikely) fit the bacteria theory but it stops there..

heres a little challenge for you. can you show evidence of where life evolved intelligence?

Is that really all you've got? I spent a bit of time on my last post. You got served. You didn't answer a single one of my questions, you ignored all my examples, you didn't address a single point with the exception of my opinion at the very end, which I qualified as such. You totally ignored the bulk of that post, because you could not rebut the arguments in it.

Uh huh.


Try, at least try to finish reading a post before you comment on it... Or does Homo Sapien not count as an animal in Beachbumworld?

Yes. Evolution is fueled partly by mutation.

Already provided it in my last post: The evolution of the Homo species in the chain from my last post. One of the distinctive characteristics is a sequentially increasing brain-chamber volume... Assuming of course that you believe that larger brains are capable of more intelligence than smaller brains. The evidence of course is that we've clearly gotten more intelligent since we lived in caves. If you can't concede that, then I'm done with you.

Here's a challenge for you: Go back to my last post and finish reading it, answer the questions, and read the links... Or if that's too much, just answer the questions.

Here are the 'yes or no' questions again:

Do you believe that ultra-violet light can damage DNA?

Do you believe that natural selection occurs?

Do you believe that a specific environment can cause traits to become stronger or weaker?

Do you believe that radiation of a species is possible?

__________________
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: RIDE A BIKE

theres no physical proof of change. i dont think you understand what change means.. just because you look at two skulls and they look different doesnt necessarily mean that on of them changed into the other. chimps and orangutans have similar skulls but one didnt evolve from the other...


ive already read it the first time.. the whole thing.. and you havent shown any direct physical proof.

yes it can. are you suggesting that mutations occur because of uv light? if so, shouldnt it be a continuous change?

not necessarily. humans are the most dominant animals on the planet yet we are not naturally selected(completely). if we were, there wouldnt be much of an animal kingdom left because we could easily kill off many of the known species. human intervention disproves natural selection.

yes.. existing traits. but this means nothing. the creatures dont get new tratis in fact, evolution states that a physical trait from a parent doesnt necessarily go to the offspring. in other words, if its easier for you to cut off one of your hands to adapt to the environment around you, that doesnt get passed down to your offspring unless your genes have a recessive gene that can come out more dominantly in that situation.

yes but again, its the same thing as uv light, if it was the cause of evolution that would meant that creatures would continuously evolve.


still waiting for that proof... the 3 generations.. remember?