How Did the Giraffe Get It's Neck?

Probably. But actually the word is used mostly to emphasize to people that one cannot assume that a mutation has its effect only on one phenotype. Actually going through and figuring out for individual cases whether or not they are or are not pleiotropy is not considered worthwhile. People do identify pleiotropic effects, but don’t spend much time identifying cases where there is no pleiotropy.

1 Like

Yes. There’s a strong influence here of physical processes like diffusion of hormones and other types of signaling molecules as they pass through the tissues. An entire operon controlling a whole host of different genes coding for different types of tissue, including bone, vascularization, muscle, cartilage, and so on, can be kept in the “on” state as the stimulus passes through layers upon layers of cells. This is at least one way how a simple regulatory mutation can simultaneously affect all these processes as the same time.

You see it in people who use hormones (like HGH or anabolic steroids), who exhibit increases in muscle and bone shape and volume(which obvious has to include more vascularization to newly developing tissues, otherwise they can’t function if they’re not fed nutrients), basically on their entire body, even places they ostensibly don’t really exercise specifically, like jaw muscles and so on. What can ultimately be a single signaling molecule produces body-wide changes.

1 Like

So let’s expand to this evolutionary change. Is it possible things like that happened with the neck of the giraffe (I can’t think of any examples of the top of my head)? Maybe the heart and circulatory system develop along with the neck? So there wouldn’t have to be multiple, simultaneous, coordinated mutations for the giraffe to evolve its long neck?

I wouldn’t call that an operon, which has a specific meaning. Different tissues express different genes, but the common undifferentiated progenitor cell populations can be affected in such a way that it affects several tissue types, as you say.

Only in the non-existent giraffe lineage in which all aspects of the neck are specified by particular genes. Development simply doesn’t work like that.

3 Likes

Which is to say we don’t need them all to be perfectly coordinated, occurring all at once.

There is, in any population, standing genetic variation in any polygenic character (such as neck length) and there is environmental variation as well. So thinking about the evolutionary process as one mutation followed by another is too limiting.

5 Likes

Except it’s more than that. “Them” in your sentence is genetic changes, and many of the things needed for an elongated neck don’t need new genes or even new regulatory connections at all. We don’t have a lot of genes that code for “grow an axon exactly 2.306 meters long.” We have developmental processes that say “grow until you get to the stop sign, and don’t worry if the stop sign is 2 cm or 2 m away.” And so on.

4 Likes

That’s my understanding as well. There’s a lot of feedback between different tissues during development which allows for one tissue type to adapt to changes in another tissue type. Even as adults we can change bone density by exercising. The growing muscle and physical strain on bones causes them to change. Tissues grow more capillaries as their oxygen demands increase. “Grow until you see a stop sign” is a pretty good way of describing it.

I suppose a better term would be a master regulator.

Found a lecture by Kirschner for those interested. Author of the book @glipsnort recommended:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n8ZBc6xtYB8

I’ve just skimmed the Naturalis Historia article and this thread, but my assumption is that AIG continues to read the mainstream scientific papers and adapts their theories, just like in any other discipline of science. So in 2005 Ham made one claim, and now they’ve updated it to be quite the opposite.

I’d guess they’d argue for similar genetic divergence for humanity after the flood as well - that the first centuries or millennia record lots of genetic adaptation. And that the fossil record of animals shows lots of adaptation due to initial genetic diversity and climate change until the climate stabilized.

Perhaps clean animals have more opportunity for genetic change having a larger, diverse population to start with.

But these are just guesses. I haven’t really studied their current positions fully, nor do I have any idea if I’m explaining it well. :joy:

You need to start by understanding that AiG is not involved in science and is not interested in science. What they do is apologetics. Their only contact with science is to attack it and try to distort it to fit YEC, which it does not. If you just read AiG stuff you aren’t getting a look at science at all.

3 Likes

Perhaps, but the issue is that YECs still make both cases at the same time, not registering that they are contradicting themselves.

2 Likes

It depends which definition of science you use. This one Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. is well within what they do. https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/ If they continue to change their understanding based on evidence, then I don’t see how it’s not scientific. It’s just a completely different interpretation. Everything I’m learning about theoretical physics is that different interpretations of the data are offered all of the time in science. Many are wrong.

AIG just includes miracles at creation and the flood in their interpretation of science. It’s really not different from what @swamidass did in his book, he’s just adding in one miracle that has no effect on how mainstream science is currently understood.

But creation and flood miracles mean interpreting all the data very differently. Genetics has changed the landscape so much in the last two decades that it’s not surprising they’d revise their theories.

AiG don’t interpret the data differently, they ignore most of the data and misrepresent the bits they do look at. Please, if you are interested in things like geology and the history of the Earth, stay away from those charlatans and find some reputable scientists and universities to learn from.

I say this as a (now retired) profesional geologist with 35+ years in the field. Part of my education came from the Free University of Amsterdam, a serious Calvinist institution. They taught proper geology, old Earth, no worldwide flood, evolution - the actual science, as it has grown over centuries of study and is practiced today all over the world by people from all religious backgrounds (and none). You know, the Earth sciences that provide the world with the oil and gas and the coal and the metal ore we all need to live our lives as we do, not to mention our understanding about earthquakes, volcanoes, and a good chunk of environmental knowledge.

AiG has contributed nothing to that, nothing at all. Think about that.

2 Likes

Sorry, but no. That’s not at all what they do. Creationism is not “just a completely different interpretation”; it requires ignoring almost all of what we know and almost all the data. Ignoring, not interpreting differently. Nothing can be legitimately interpreted as evidence for a young earth, a global flood, and separate “kinds” (whatever those are).

It’s radically different. As you say, his miracle doesn’t contradict the evidence, while their many miracles do.

No, they mean ignoring and distorting all the data. It’s not a matter of interpretation.

3 Likes

Here is what AiG does:

They start with their religious beliefs and throw out any evidence that contradicts it. That’s the opposite of doing science.

They include processes they have no evidence for in order to explain away inconvenient evidence that does exist. That, again, is the opposite of science.

1 Like

“By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record”.

Whatever it is you think you’re doing, if you accept that statement, it’s not science. Science does not require adherence to a particular conclusion before the evidence is even considered.

Science is about the method, and making models to fit the evidence, regardless of what conclusion this supports.

AIG is about only the conclusion, and only one counts(as you can see above in their own words), and their method is to make the evidence fit the conclusion.

3 Likes

I read the statement of faith for AiG…there are many flaws that I can see (and feel)…They sound like kids on a playground, “IS SO, IS NOT.” without laying down any reason for the thinking.

And this is just plain offensive. So, for those keeping track, I am not a proponent of AiG. I found all of Section 4 to be ridiculous and actually directly opposite of what scripture teaches. Strange.

1 Like