Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daggah · 02-06-2002, 11:36 PM

<a href="http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm" target="_blank">First Genetic Evidence of how major changes in body shapes occurred during early animal evolution</a>

Some choice quotes from the article:

Quote:

Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.

In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.

The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution—the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.

Big news? Well, to me, the evidence for macroevolution has already proven itself, but hey.

This one goes into the favorites!

02-07-2002, 02:06 AM

Good stuff! I hope something about this gets posted on Talkorigins.

DarkBronzePlant · 02-07-2002, 07:16 AM

I'm sure as we speak the fundies are gathering together to prepare a response.

manhattan · 02-07-2002, 08:15 AM

Yep. Something along the lines of, "God forbade the Israelites from eating shellfish and many insects. So clearly, they are of the same 'kind.'"

We should have a pool. Everyone throw in a buck, and whoever most closely guesses the most common response takes the cash.

butswana · 02-07-2002, 08:53 AM

Crap. found the same story here:

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020207075601.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020207075601.htm</a>

sans pretty drawings

jhallum · 02-07-2002, 09:16 AM

The DI beat you to it:

<a href="http://http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/temp/0206-102.html" target="_blank">Newswire Press Release</a>

pretty lame stuff, if you ask me.

theyeti · 02-07-2002, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jhallum:
<strong>The DI beat you to it:

<a href="http://http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/temp/0206-102.html" target="_blank">Newswire Press Release</a>

pretty lame stuff, if you ask me.</strong>

Since people like Daggah can't quit reposting topics for which we already have other threads

, I'm going to repost this here and close down the other one.

Quote:

Check out <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001748.html" target="_blank">this thread</a> at ARN. It appears that Wells was quoted in a piece for the Discovery Institute criticizing this. Unfortunately for him, he got even the basic facts wrong -- it appears that he didn't even read the paper.

theyeti

Dr.GH · 02-07-2002, 09:49 AM

The intelligent design creationists made a response.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001748.html" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001748.html</a>

Darn theyeti beat me by a nose.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

tgamble · 02-07-2002, 10:27 AM

"The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution�the absence of a
genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs."

cretinist response:

A lot of 'coulds' in there."

How your understanding of 'evolution' evolved:

(1)might have (2) Could have (3) must have (4) It's a fact!

Well, so much for that evidence...

Peez · 02-07-2002, 11:07 AM

creationist: A could NOT have evolved from B!

scientist: A could have evolved from B, just look at this evidence.

creationist: "Could" have! You don't even know for sure!

Peez

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-07-2002, 02:06 AM	#2
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Good stuff! I hope something about this gets posted on Talkorigins.

02-07-2002, 07:16 AM	#3
DarkBronzePlant Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Francisco, CA USA Posts: 3,568	I'm sure as we speak the fundies are gathering together to prepare a response.

02-07-2002, 08:15 AM	#4
manhattan Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: New York, NY, USA Posts: 400	Yep. Something along the lines of, "God forbade the Israelites from eating shellfish and many insects. So clearly, they are of the same 'kind.'" We should have a pool. Everyone throw in a buck, and whoever most closely guesses the most common response takes the cash.

02-07-2002, 08:53 AM	#5
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	Crap. found the same story here: <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020207075601.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020207075601.htm</a> sans pretty drawings

02-07-2002, 09:16 AM	#6
jhallum Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 26	The DI beat you to it: <a href="http://http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/temp/0206-102.html" target="_blank">Newswire Press Release</a> pretty lame stuff, if you ask me.

02-07-2002, 09:49 AM	#8
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	The intelligent design creationists made a response. <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001748.html" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001748.html</a> Darn theyeti beat me by a nose. [ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

02-07-2002, 10:27 AM	#9
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	"The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution�the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs." cretinist response: A lot of 'coulds' in there." How your understanding of 'evolution' evolved: (1)might have (2) Could have (3) must have (4) It's a fact! Well, so much for that evidence...

02-07-2002, 11:07 AM	#10
Peez Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 5,504	creationist: A could NOT have evolved from B! scientist: A could have evolved from B, just look at this evidence. creationist: "Could" have! You don't even know for sure! Peez

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.