DNA changes in hatcheries, interesting.

[Zoaelite]

Originally Posted by TimT

Interesting... looks like they found proof that epigenetics does indeed change the underlying DNA. So much for genetic change taking millions/billions of years... more data that doesn't support evolution.

Without access to the actual study I'm inclined to believe another factor is in play that the researchers might not be accounting for.

Many fish species have been observed to undergo adaptive phenotypic gene plasticity. Pretty much a large word for "we have hidden genes you don't know about".

Under adverse or different conditions epigenetic factors cause the phenotypic expression of said genes, something that actually takes a generation or two to occur (very much like the posted study).

If you want to read about gene plasticity in fish here is a good article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673650

As far as epigenetics effecting the "code" of underlying DNA, I don't believe the authors show any link between the two. We know that epigenetics has a great effect on the overall phenotypic expression due to... well epigenetic factors (methylation of DNA or genetic "switches") but the ability to physically CHANGE the genetic code is... evolution and in this case its not rapid (punctated equilibrium) its just the emergence of an older gene pool through gene plasticity.

Originally Posted by TimT

So much for genetic change taking millions/billions of years... more data that doesn't support evolution.

Now your playing a really interesting card here Tim, I'm always open for a good discussion so if you would be so kind to elaborate your thoughts on this statement?

[somafish]

Originally Posted by Zoaelite

Without access to the actual study I'm inclined to believe another factor is in play that the researchers might not be accounting for.

Many fish species have been observed to undergo adaptive phenotypic gene plasticity. Pretty much a large word for "we have hidden genes you don't know about".

Under adverse or different conditions epigenetic factors cause the phenotypic expression of said genes, something that actually takes a generation or two to occur (very much like the posted study).

If you want to read about gene plasticity in fish here is a good article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673650

As far as epigenetics effecting the "code" of underlying DNA, I don't believe the authors show any link between the two. We know that epigenetics has a great effect on the overall phenotypic expression due to... well epigenetic factors (methylation of DNA or genetic "switches") but the ability to physically CHANGE the genetic code is... evolution and in this case its not rapid (punctated equilibrium) its just the emergence of an older gene pool through gene plasticity.



Now your playing a really interesting card here Tim, I'm always open for a good discussion so if you would be so kind to elaborate your thoughts on this statement?

I was gonna say the exact same thing. Word for word

[TimT]

From the press release.

"This new DNA evidence directly measured the activity of all genes in the offspring of hatchery and wild fish. It conclusively demonstrates that the genetic differences between hatchery and wild fish are large in scale and fully heritable."

Originally Posted by Zoaelite

Without access to the actual study I'm inclined to believe another factor is in play that the researchers might not be accounting for.

If the press release is accurate then this research poses some hard questions for people who have faith in Darwinian Macro Evolution(DME), by that I mean "From goo to you by way of the Zoo" and not the ability of our DNA to change based on environmental conditions. Press releases are usually prepared by the people directly involved with the project/research. I agree that it would be best to look directly at the article.

Originally Posted by Zoaelite

As far as epigenetics effecting the "code" of underlying DNA, I don't believe the authors show any link between the two.

Read the quote above. That's exactly what they show. Environmental hatchery conditions directly making large and heritable changes in the underlying DNA. It would be interesting to see if river hatched offspring(f2) of the hatchery fish(f1) had their DNA revert back to the same as the wild parents. Then Gene Plasticity could be said to exist. But without that info I tend to think your using gene plasticity as a bit of a, if I may... Red Herring? Isn't DME all about the strongest survive to recreate and spread their new improved DNA. How does carrying an old back up of useless DNA make one stronger and better able to reproduce? Counter DME in my books.

Originally Posted by Albert_dao

How does this not support evolution?

If genetic change does not take millions or billions of years to manifest then there is another problem with Darwin's assumptions upon which he based his theory of evolution. Since one of his main assumptions has been dis-proven by modern science then this could be the death knell for DME.

Based on DME some paleontologists believe that dinosaurs were alive millions of years ago and all died out before humans arrived. But then the data rears it's ugly head and provides fresh dinosaur bones. Fresh meaning bones that showed no signs of fossilization or even the precursor to fossilization, permineralization. This would be the same as if you stumbled upon a pile of moose bones while out for a hike. The fresh Hadrosaur bone article can be found in the Journal of Paleontology via Jstor. Happened in the early 60's.

Back to work for me :-)

[sphelps]

Tim are you a YEC?

[WarDog]

Wow... interesting topic of discussion.

I fear that even those people who believe in evolution don't fully understand Darwin's theories. The vast majority of those asked to explain it get it horribly wrong, including myself until about 10 years ago... and I grew up with a Zoologist father.

[TimT]

Originally Posted by sphelps

Tim are you a YEC?

I am neither a Darwinian Evolutionist nor a Young Earth Creationist as they both have issues/baggage caused by their respective belief systems. The DE and YEC labels also have a certain amount of baggage attached that may or may not apply to a person. I believe labels are never helpful and usually just the first step in trying to delegitimatize a person. Not saying that thats the case here. :-) I try to let the data speak for itself instead of trying to fit it into a pre conceived belief system.

Originally Posted by Wardog

I fear that even those people who believe in evolution don't fully understand Darwin's theories. The vast majority of those asked to explain it get it horribly wrong, including myself until about 10 years ago... and I grew up with a Zoologist father.

Good point Warren. It is important to qualify the definitions as different people interpret different things from the same words. To have a valid discussion all parties need to know there is commonality between definitions. That's why I clarified my definitions.

[albert_dao]

Originally Posted by TimT

I am neither a Darwinian Evolutionist nor a Young Earth Creationist as they both have issues/baggage caused by their respective belief systems. The DE and YEC labels also have a certain amount of baggage attached that may or may not apply to a person. I believe labels are never helpful and usually just the first step in trying to delegitimatize a person. Not saying that thats the case here. :-) I try to let the data speak for itself instead of trying to fit it into a pre conceived belief system.

Being an "evolutionist" is not a belief system no more than being a "gravitationalist" or a "particalist" is though.

Tim, I am strongly urging you to take a look at the articles I previously linked in my footnotes. I suspect that you may have in incomplete picture of what the theory encompasses or how much of a fundamental keystone it is to modern science. Don't do it man! Evolution is awesome! Be awesome!

[albert_dao]

Originally Posted by TimT

If genetic change does not take millions or billions of years to manifest then there is another problem with Darwin's assumptions upon which he based his theory of evolution. Since one of his main assumptions has been dis-proven by modern science then this could be the death knell for DME.

Based on DME some paleontologists believe that dinosaurs were alive millions of years ago and all died out before humans arrived. But then the data rears it's ugly head and provides fresh dinosaur bones. Fresh meaning bones that showed no signs of fossilization or even the precursor to fossilization, permineralization. This would be the same as if you stumbled upon a pile of moose bones while out for a hike. The fresh Hadrosaur bone article can be found in the Journal of Paleontology via Jstor. Happened in the early 60's.

Back to work for me :-)

Wait, I can debunk all of this...

1. No one said genetic change takes millions of years. It happens generation to generation (the flu is a common example). Hell, it happens within individuals under relatively short time frames.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/po...find-1.1053624

2. Darwin proposed evolution. But if he recanted on this deathbed (which he didn't), it wouldn't change its validity nor the expansion of the science that has occurred since his hypothesis became theory.

3. Dinosaur soft tissue discoveries can occur due to obscure preservation events.

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Some more reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ft-in-the-lab/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

[TimT]

Originally Posted by albert_dao

Wait, I can debunk all of this...

I wish it were that simple. LoL

Originally Posted by albert_dao

1. No one said genetic change takes millions of years. It happens generation to generation (the flu is a common example). Hell, it happens within individuals under relatively short time frames.

Ah that's what I was taught in Biology 12... over millions of years blah blah blah changed and became blah blah blah. Change happens through genetic change. Notice how the millions of years has now become immediate. If a theory is true it doesn't need to be constantly revised. I've never heard of Einstein revising his theory of relativity.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/po...find-1.1053624

Interesting article. Just more evidence that genetic change happens quickly. Which I happen to agree with. Some people call that micro evolution and I'm fine with that term.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

2. Darwin proposed evolution. But if he recanted on this deathbed (which he didn't), it wouldn't change its validity nor the expansion of the science that has occurred since his hypothesis became theory.

I think the waters been too muddied to know whether Darwin recanted or not. I find the point irrelevant anyways. As far as crediting the expansion of science to the Theory of Evolution. What about the knowledge explosion in the Renaissance? That was way before Darwin's time. My point is there are many factors that contributed to mankinds explosive growth of knowledge. The biggest being printing presses and the internet. Evolution has nothing to do with the dissemination of knowledge. To credit evolution with the advances in science is incorrect when it is due to the rapid dissemination of knowledge.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

3. Dinosaur soft tissue discoveries can occur due to obscure preservation events.

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Interesting article. They found soft tissue inside fossilized bones. She said they even have found chemicals consistent with being DNA. There's a few differences between this article and the one I mentioned. The Hadrosaur bones I mentioned were not fossilized. They hadn't even started to fossilize. They were found laying on the surface of the ground in a pile.

Here's an interesting article as well:
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a...f-life-1.11555

If you read it check out the part by Simon Ho. He is a good example of how evolutionary dogma is clouding his thinking. His reasoning is as follows: There can't be DNA found in dinosaurs or insects trapped in amber as they are at least 65 million years old and we know any bits of DNA code are less than 500,000 yrs old. An unbiased scientist would say something like. Test the dinosaurs and amber trapped insects for dna. If you find it then we know they are less than 500,000 yrs old. If there's no DNA found then there's no issue.

I'll read the rest of your links later.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

Being an "evolutionist" is not a belief system no more than being a "gravitationalist" or a "particalist" is though.

Lets break this statement down a bit.
Evolution = non observable and non repeatable which requires faith to believe exists/works. Hence a belief system.
Gravity = observable and repeatable results
Particle Physics = observable and repeatable results
True science is based on Observable and Repeatable results.
Evolution is a hypothetical science that violates known LAWS of the universe. ie 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Darwinian Macro Evolution is a house of cards just before a wind storm. Get out quick Albert. ;^) Even Richard Dawkins is running. Here's an interesting exchange where he endorses intelligent design and then goes on to say the higher intelligence must have come about via Darwinian Evolution.
http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?opt...test&Itemid=28

[albert_dao]

Originally Posted by TimT

I wish it were that simple. LoL

It is.

Originally Posted by TimT

Ah that's what I was taught in Biology 12... over millions of years blah blah blah changed and became blah blah blah. Change happens through genetic change. Notice how the millions of years has now become immediate. If a theory is true it doesn't need to be constantly revised. I've never heard of Einstein revising his theory of relativity.

That's not how science works. Theories are revised as more/better data becomes available. Think of the things that have happened since Darwin's time. Our understanding of biology and genetics has increased thousandfold through good science.

Einstein is dead. He won't be making any revisions to anything. Regardless, this is a strawman, no one is arguing for relativity. Science is additive and if new and better information supplants older information, then it adopts the best fit. This is how the knowledge pool is expanded.

Originally Posted by TimT

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/po...find-1.1053624

Interesting article. Just more evidence that genetic change happens quickly. Which I happen to agree with. Some people call that micro evolution and I'm fine with that term.

Macro and micro evolution are just red herring phrases. There's no such thing as either. One is just the other extended over longer periods of time. Think of it this way, if I was to take a picture of you when you were 12 and compare that to now, there would be very clear delineation (a macro change). However, if we did the same thing by comparing a picture of you as a toddler as a gradient of every day of your life to the present, day-by-day comparisons would show little, if any variation (micro). Same thing applies to speciation ---- Which is different than evolution, btw, people get this mixed up all the time.

Originally Posted by TimT

I think the waters been too muddied to know whether Darwin recanted or not. I find the point irrelevant anyways. As far as crediting the expansion of science to the Theory of Evolution. What about the knowledge explosion in the Renaissance? That was way before Darwin's time. My point is there are many factors that contributed to mankinds explosive growth of knowledge. The biggest being printing presses and the internet. Evolution has nothing to do with the dissemination of knowledge. To credit evolution with the advances in science is incorrect when it is due to the rapid dissemination of knowledge.

I think you're setting up a strawman here Tim :P

Originally Posted by TimT

Interesting article. They found soft tissue inside fossilized bones. She said they even have found chemicals consistent with being DNA. There's a few differences between this article and the one I mentioned. The Hadrosaur bones I mentioned were not fossilized. They hadn't even started to fossilize. They were found laying on the surface of the ground in a pile.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to pull a "source or it didn't happen" here, haha.

Originally Posted by TimT

Here's an interesting article as well:
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a...f-life-1.11555

If you read it check out the part by Simon Ho. He is a good example of how evolutionary dogma is clouding his thinking. His reasoning is as follows: There can't be DNA found in dinosaurs or insects trapped in amber as they are at least 65 million years old and we know any bits of DNA code are less than 500,000 yrs old. An unbiased scientist would say something like. Test the dinosaurs and amber trapped insects for dna. If you find it then we know they are less than 500,000 yrs old. If there's no DNA found then there's no issue.

This is incorrect, the correct statement would be "DNA will not remain intact for x years", not "DNA only last a so-so amount of time".

Originally Posted by TimT

Lets break this statement down a bit.

Will do!

Originally Posted by TimT

Evolution = non observable and non repeatable which requires faith to believe exists/works. Hence a belief system.

It IS observable. It happens in hospitals (superbugs), it happens in transplanted populations. It happens in the lab:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

Originally Posted by TimT

Gravity = observable and repeatable results

Yes.

Originally Posted by TimT

Particle Physics = observable and repeatable results

Yes.

Originally Posted by TimT

True science is based on Observable and Repeatable results.

Yes.

Originally Posted by TimT

Evolution is a hypothetical science that violates known LAWS of the universe. ie 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It is not hypothetical and it does not violate thermodynamics... Which has bloody absolutely nothing to do with evolution. This is a common trope of creationist to discredit the theory (which is the highest level an idea can be elevated to within science, btw). Here's a quick summary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3ShyXSHsbc

Originally Posted by TimT

Darwinian Macro Evolution is a house of cards just before a wind storm. Get out quick Albert. ;^) Even Richard Dawkins is running. Here's an interesting exchange where he endorses intelligent design and then goes on to say the higher intelligence must have come about via Darwinian Evolution.
http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?opt...test&Itemid=28

No, Richard Dawkins is not running from evolution. ben Stein edited and cherry picked that interview to match his narrative. He's scum for doing it too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AasyrRULHog

There it is from Richard himself.