Captivity?

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.

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)

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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!

Originally Posted by TrpnBils

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.

Originally Posted by TrpnBils

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.

Originally Posted by TrpnBils

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.

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.

Originally Posted by CAV

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.

Originally Posted by CAV

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.

Originally Posted by CAV

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!

Originally Posted by TrpnBils

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.

Originally Posted by TrpnBils

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.

Originally Posted by TrpnBils

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.

Originally Posted by CAV

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)

Originally Posted by CAV

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.

Originally Posted by TrpnBils

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.