Anyone care to explain this? 
supersport
18 y
1,578
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000728082041.htm
How could something that took "millions of years" to evolove take only 8 days re-form?
"Within eight days of implanting a lens from a sighted surface-dwelling fish to a blind cave fish of the same species, Maryland researchers began to see an eye develop from underneath a flap of skin. After two months, the cave fish had grown a large restored eye with a distinct pupil, cornea and iris. In addition, the retina of the restored eye showed rod photoreceptor cells, which are rare in the degenerate cave fish eye."
Corinthian....you've got some explaining to do....and keep in mind that neo-darwinism relies on RANDOM mutations...not phenotypic plasticity. S
More
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? The_Corinthian
18 y
1,551
MoreThis is a reply to # 414,686You kill me ss.
This is pure speculation, but If I were to continue the research I would look into not the genes that are responsible for the formation of the eye for the genes (because it is clear they can be activated), but into gene regulation.
This is an example of evolutionary conservation, it would not be necessary to delete the whole gene if you could just prevent RNA from recognizing a start site.
I would also look into apotoptic regulation. Since the eyes are present during embryonic development. The authors write:"evolutionary changes in an inductive signal from the lens are involved in cave fish eye degeneration."
The mis-regulation of apotopsis occurs in humans too and its failure is seen in children born with webbed hands/feet, our hands start of as fish like paddles - true to our evolutionary heritage.
More
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,421
This is a reply to # 414,688Nice try, Corinthian.....but let me teach you something.
Randomness is the essential mechanism of neo-darwinism. Since starting my investigation into this evolution nonsense about a year ago, I have not run across a known physical or chemical mechanism that is proven to generate heritable variations that will improve the adaptability of an organism or increase complexity. But the evolutoionists have chosen RANDOMNESS as a scientific mechanism to produce the variations they need. With this – along with natural selection -- they hope to deceive the masses into believing that the evolution of the world and the development of life was an Almighty accident. It’s nothing but an unholy hoax.
I must repeat. Neo-darwinists have completely rejected the concept of NON-randomness as a major feature variation. In this respect they actually differed from Darwin, who at first embraced chance – but later rejected it. But the thing is, without random mutations the Darwinists have no mechanism to offer for evolution. Natural selection, by itself is impotent without the little miracle of random mutations.
So let me ask you, Corinthian....what is the biological mechanism that darwinists would attribute this to. Body parts are not supposed to re-form in a matter of days or weeks.....according to them, it took "MILLIONS of years" for these fish to lose their site. Common sense says it should take the same amount of time to reform.
Also....are you telling me that if these fish were put back into the wild in a lighted area that it would take "millions of years" for the lens to evolve...yet only 8 days for the complex eye to evolve afterwards? Don't make me laugh!
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? muad_dib
18 y
1,462
This is a reply to # 414,689I think you may have seen the word evolution and gotten excited too early. This is an example of apoptosis due to transcription factors. It's just like if you removed or disabled testicular tissue in a male human embryo before at a certain stage of development. The presence of early testicular tissue (as told to develop by the Y chromosome) normally leads to secretion of anti-mullerian hormone which tells the female reproductive tract that's starting to form to stop and regress. No anti-mullerian hormone would result in the formation of female reproductive tract. The kid would be XY but would have fallopian tubes and the like. A lot of organogenesis in animals is due to something devloping and it secreting something that leads to the formation of something else. In the absence of certain transcription factors, regression and apoptosis occurs. The article didn't say anything about transfer of this trait to future generations. It also said that the presence of the eye doesn't necessarily mean functionality. If you manipulated development of the human embryo at a certain time you could have a baby with webbed hands and feet and a tail. Pretty interesting research though.
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,403
This is a reply to # 414,690I'm asking for the biological MECCHANISM for change. This was a change of a phenotype.....biological changes call for a biological mechanism. I'm asking you what it is called. Feel free to scour the internet. S
p.s. ...oh, what the heck.... I'll go ahead and tell you...it's called phenotypic plasticity. If you can somehow weave that into neo-darwinism then I would like to read how.
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? stridar
18 y
1,441
This is a reply to # 414,691MECCHANISM never heard of it! Suopy we know you dont have a clue, so stop pretending!
Funny how you use Science to TRY to discredit science! And of course I have seen nothing out of your lips that supports your claims to creationismism, a tall tale at best a pure lie in its purist form ! The bible a book said to have the word of the lord in it ,yet it is just man made, although well written, as most propagandist are capable in the field of lies! I wonder when the new version of the bibble with the Book of Geedubya is coming out!- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,442
This is a reply to # 414,692Any theory meant to explain how all the plants and animals of the world evolved from a single cell better be able to tell me HOW it happened....how all this information got into the genome. Darwinists have identified random mutations via natural selction as their main tool. This sounds good until you consider that random mutations are EXTREMELY RARE (as acknowledged by evolutionists)...and thus...this would take thousands, if not millions of years to change the phenotype of an animal. But I just showed you how animals change in weeks, months.
So I'll ask you again, WHAT IS YOUR MECHANISM that explains this rapid bilogical change in these animals? You must give me one or raise the white flag. Hint...you won't find it at talkorigins.org! S
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? The-Corinthian
18 y
1,331
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,386
This is a reply to # 414,696Gene regulation is not a biological mechanism...it's a biological FUNCTION. This is simply a term used to describe which proteins, and how much of them, the cell makes. They often do this by encoding a protein that turns specific genes ON or OFF. Here's what I mean by a mechanism:
Random mutations via natural selection, genetic drift, genetic accomodation, there are a few more. You have merely stated a bilogical function -- but that in itself cannot create change....you need something directing it. Try again. S
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? #65626
18 y
1,388
This is a reply to # 414,697You are misinterpreting what you are reading. This is gene regulation. The Genome is not being affected, the trait is not being passed on to the progeny. Evolution requires a Genomic change that can be passed on. That is not the case here.
Think of it as implanting stem cells to help your organ grow, or receiving gene therapy to turn on a particular gene. There is probably a protein in the transplanted tissue that is triggering a change in gene activity on the surrounding host tissue. Its is very different from evolution.
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,418
This is a reply to # 414,699Sorry to inform you, friend but phenotypic change is all that's needed to show evolution. If scientists dug bones out of the ground that showed a major phenotypic change, that would be underscored as a variation of species. Sorry, but genetic change is not necessary. All that's necessary is a change in physical form. Nice try though. S
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? #65638
18 y
1,351
This is a reply to # 414,700You had it right when you wrote: I STILL don't understand it
This does not mean what you think it does. Give it up, your knowledge of biology is lacking if you can't make sense of a simply worded report.
For the last time, this is not about evolution.
Nice try though. Please come back after gaining some knowledge.- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,378
This is a reply to # 414,702Hey hotshot...genetic rearrangements are simply the normal activity of the cell...similar to simple cell division -- though they do not happen as often. They are also RANDOM, which means you cannot expect to get a large adaptive genetic change by CHANCE! (I'm sure you don't believe me...so look it up yourself)
...But you can say anything you want -- that doesn't make it right....And randomness is not what happens when an animal quickly changes phenotypes in a matter of days to adjust to his environment! This is a non-random mutation. PERIOD.
Neo darwinists INSIST that the POPULATION will tend to change to adapt to its environment. It says changes will appear at random and build up. This is how they say changes happen -- over vast periods of time. This is how they attempt to explain how the complexity of life built up. They do not admit that INDIVIDUAL animals can be adaptive.
Yet the fact is I've given you probably 10 links of examples of phenotypic plasticity in the past week. In this case, the fish grew eyes as a result of an environmental cue: sunlight getting to the inner eyes. This changed his phenotype in just 8 days. I don't care what you say, darwinists have NO ANSWER FOR THIS. Quit hiding behind gene-talk...it's nothing but nonsense....common sense will tell you everything you need to know. S
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? muad_dib
18 y
1,416
This is a reply to # 414,704So you pretty much just ignore the responses that people have made pointing out that the experiment showed that transcription factors in development lead to organogenesis? Sunlight hitting the eyes had nothing to do with it, they implanted viable lens tissue.
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,322
This is a reply to # 414,727"It's noteworthy, they pointed out, that the Bible recounts Noah sealed his ark with pitch, a black substance."
Black substance ? In the Bible ? Pitch is clear.
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,322
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? muad_dib
18 y
1,416
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,378
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? #65638
18 y
1,351
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,418
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? #65626
18 y
1,388
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,386
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? The-Corinthian
18 y
1,331
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,442
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? stridar
18 y
1,441
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,403
- Not Evolution The__Corinthian
18 y
1,570
This is a reply to # 414,689You really don't understand what you are reading. Are you making up sentences that we are not aware? Or do you only read the words you like to make up your own sentences? Let me highlight some of the more important aspects for you, and if this does not help you, the nothing will.
after a lens transplant from a sighted surface-dwelling fish of the same species
This was SURGERY. Are those people getting pig heart valves now "evolved" by your standards?
sheds light on understanding the role of genetic factors in eye growth and development
Within eight days of implanting a lens
it shows the growth of an eye is controlled in a large part by the lens
this research suggests a simple method in testing factors that control eye-growth.
- Re: Not Evolution supersport
18 y
1,510
This is a reply to # 414,707I just wanted to clear this up and explain to anyone lurking why this devestates Darwin:
First of all this shows that the environment can act on hormones...and it shows that hormones can play a role in regulating genes in targeted cells. This is a perfect example of a non-random adaptive phenotypic change triggered by the environment....and these changes in the phenotype (physical characteristics) are more like the throwing of a switch than a single random mutation -- such as darwinists require. This is why these fish were able to start re-growing eyes after 8 days -- because the information was already IN the genome. According to Toe, this should have taken millions of years -- as you can see on this link.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0728082041.htm
Also you will notice that there is no need for "natural selection,"...no need for "random mutations,"....no need for "sexual selection,"....no need for "genetic accommodation,"....no need for any of the nonsense that evolutionists try to confuse us with....and without these, they don't have a theory! ---- Yet, nothing else was involved here other than the animal, an environmental cue and an honest scientist.
Not only that but this is something that the Darwinists simply cannot explain...and the reason for this is everyone one of their mechanisms that supposedly adds information to the genome are RANDOM. Yet, there was NOTHING random about what happened in the link I gave. (And the little secret is neo-darwinists main mechanism for change (random mutations) has never been proven to add anything constructive at all....if you ever hear otherwise, ask for a link.)
Let me ask you corinthian (since you never answered me)...do you think this fish would have grown his eyes back if he was placed in a DARK CAVE? NO, of course not.....this was a non-random biological change forced by an abrupt environmental change. This is evolution seen first-hand. End of story. S
- Re: Not Evolution supersport
18 y
1,364
This is a reply to # 414,710http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/uoa-fgr021003.php
And if you still don't like it, then what about this one? I could give you many more. S - Re: Not Evolution stridar
18 y
1,422
This is a reply to # 414,710lol soupy why do you just make things up? this article says none of the things you say ! lude ee crust! Do you giggle when you think these things up?
- Re: Not Evolution supersport
18 y
1,364
- Re: Not Evolution supersport
18 y
1,510
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? muad_dib
18 y
1,462
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? supersport
18 y
1,421
- Re: Anyone care to explain this? The_Corinthian
18 y
1,551
Share:
Translate This Page: