hairyjuan 0 #801 July 20, 2006 If you make yourselves like SHEEP, the wolves will eat you--Benjamin Franklin Beware of the man whose 'god' is in the skies--George Bernard Shaw www.1215.org "What is god?" located at www.truthbeknown.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #802 July 20, 2006 Yes, that's wrong. A section of code can have extra pieces just as easily as it can have missing pieces. Edited to add one of many citations: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=iga.section.4127 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #803 July 20, 2006 QuoteSpetner, "Not by Chance : Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution", 1997 Why? Are you saying it's wrong? AbsolutelyNever try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #804 July 20, 2006 QuoteSpetner, "Not by Chance : Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution", 1997 Why? Are you saying it's wrong? Thanks for the reference. Interesting to note that Spetner finds evolution hard to believe because "It clashed... with my religious views". Anywy, it sounds wrong to me. Take the case of a single celled organism reproducing asexually, and encountering slightly different environments as it spreads. Without mutation there is no genetic diversity and the organism is limited in the environments it can spread to. Now say there are, oh, a hundred seperate mutations in the population. 98 of these are damaging and the organisms die before reproducing again. However 1 of them is useful in the original habitat where the mutated organism thrives and replaces the original. The other allows it to survive in a new previously unpopulated habitat. Although natural selection has eradicated 99 variants of the organism (got rid of information if you will), the combination of natural selection and mutation has resulted in 2 variants where there was only 1. Your sentance following the part I wuoted earlier is also interesting, QuoteSpecies diversification leads to a smaller and smaller gene pool So if all domestic cats were tabby, there would be a larger gene pool than with the many varieties there are today?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #805 July 20, 2006 QuoteYes, that's wrong. A section of code can have extra pieces just as easily as it can have missing pieces. We're not talking about adding new traits (whether the effect is positive or negative for survival). We're talking about adding new genetic information transforming it into something else altogether with new function (which is required of evolution). You could duplicate the DNA adding to it and call it new genetic information but there's no added function and it's really the same old stuff and usually the consequences are negative (e.g. Down's Syndrome). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #806 July 20, 2006 QuoteYou could duplicate the DNA adding to it and call it new genetic information but there's no added function and it's really the same old stuff and usually the consequences are negative (e.g. Down's Syndrome). Contradiction. First you say there is no added function, then you say there can be (Down's syndrome). As an aside, it is not always easy to say whether 'good' or 'bad' mutations are the most useful. Take sickle cell anaemia - a bad thing. However if you lived in an area badly affected by malaria you might be quite happy to have a sickle cell gene.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #807 July 20, 2006 >We're not talking about adding new traits (whether the effect is >positive or negative for survival). We're talking about adding new >genetic information transforming it into something else altogether >with new function (which is required of evolution). The two things you mentioned are the same. A hand does not instantly transform into a flipper. It's a very gradual process of slowly adding skin between toes, straightening and lengthening the bones of the foot, moving musculature around etc. Darwin once said that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." So far no such organ or appendage has been found that could not have been so formed. If you do find one, then by all means, describe it, publish a paper about it and submit it to Nature. Your Nobel prize would pretty much be assured. >You could duplicate the DNA adding to it and call it new genetic > information but there's no added function . . . Uh, all DNA is just a pattern of four amino acids, in groups of three (codons). Duplicate a codon in an area that codes for a specific protein and you have completely changed that protein. It's entirely new genetic information. 99.999% of the time, the change produces nothing useful, or something deadly. .001% of the time it produces something useful that's passed down to the organism's offspring. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #808 July 20, 2006 >I should be able to walk outside and see transitional species >abounding everywhere. You can. Mudskippers are fish evolving feet. Hippos are mammals moving back to the water, like whales did. Manatees are a little further along. Flying squirrels are squirrels that have just begun to evolve the ability to fly. Cave fish have evolved so that they no longer have eyes. Ciclids have evolved from a single species to dozens of completely different forms in a single lake, and are still changing. MRSA and VRE are evolving fast to be resistant to antibiotics. Your children will have a lot more trouble than you will with these transitional species of bacteria. >There was a baby recently born with three arms. Good example. If we killed everyone that DIDN'T have three arms (i.e. applied an external selective pressure) then very soon every human would have three arms. We would have forced a rapid evolutionary change. However, since there is no advantage to having three arms in our society - and indeed many drawbacks from a reproductive standpoint - such changes do not propagate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #809 July 20, 2006 QuoteContradiction. First you say there is no added function, then you say there can be (Down's syndrome). Is there added function with Down's Syndrome? Is that person with Down's Syndrome not human? QuoteAs an aside, it is not always easy to say whether 'good' or 'bad' mutations are the most useful. Take sickle cell anaemia - a bad thing. However if you lived in an area badly affected by malaria you might be quite happy to have a sickle cell gene. Are you really saying that reducing one's capability to transfer oxygen and perfuse the tissues is a positive effect? Would that not be a trait leading to extinction rather than producing a new species? Besides, what has a deformity with a person's red blood cells got to do with their chances of catching a virus? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #810 July 20, 2006 >Are you really saying that reducing one's capability to transfer >oxygen and perfuse the tissues is a positive effect? Yes! You survive malaria, a deadly disease that once killed massive chunks of humanity. Also, if you have ONE gene for sickle cell anemia, you do not have the problems associated with sickle cell anemia (i.e. your red blood cells are mostly OK) but you are more immune to malaria. An excellent example of why a seemingly dangerous genetic trait is kept in the gene pool by evolutionary pressures. >Besides, what has a deformity with a person's red blood cells got to >do with their chances of catching a virus? Malaria is a parasite, not a virus, that reproduces in red blood cells. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #811 July 20, 2006 What about polydactyly? In humans and animals, the mutation/addition of the polydactyl gene adds extra fingers and toes, which could be argued, adds additional function. How well could a human, for example, play piano or guitar with an extra finger on each hand? Polydactyl cats have additional front toes and claws, adding additional ability to defend themselves. The trait is dominant in cats (although there is also a recessive form that causes hip problems in addition to extra toes, but this is not the same gene). The trait is recessive in humans and linked to a type of dwarfism, but as humans with the trait typically grow between 4-5 feet, this isn't much of a handicap, and imagine what you could do with a couple of extra fingers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #812 July 20, 2006 QuoteAre you really saying that reducing one's capability to transfer oxygen and perfuse the tissues is a positive effect? Would that not be a trait leading to extinction rather than producing a new species? Besides, what has a deformity with a person's red blood cells got to do with their chances of catching a virus? Inheriting the sickle cell anaemia gene from both parents will give you sickle cell anaemia - a very bad thing not selected for. Inheriting one copy of the gene it is mostly recessive and will only cause very mild anaemia but imparts significant resistance to malaria. In areas of high malaria risk there is a much greater incidence of sickle cell anaemia. The gene is selected for through malaria killing off those who don't have it at a greater rate than anaemia killing off those unlucky enough to inherit it from both sides.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #813 July 20, 2006 QuoteMudskippers are fish evolving feet. Fins also used to pull it along are not feet. There should be examples of these fins developing into better and better feet. Are there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #814 July 20, 2006 QuoteMalaria is a parasite, not a virus, that reproduces in red blood cells. You're right. My bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #815 July 20, 2006 This explains how sickle cell trait makes people who carry it more likely to survive malaria. "[Sometimes] mutations [can] give the recepient an advantage over other people. Sometimes the advantage improves the ability to survive a potentially deadly illness. The affected individual can then pass his/her genes to the next generation more efficiently than other people because they are more likely to reach reproductive age. This increases the chance that the modified gene will survive into the first generation (that of the children) and from there move into the following generation (that of the grandchildren). This is a "positive" mutation...A common misconception is that natural selection somehow produces a desirable change: "giraffes grew long necks in order to reach leaves high in trees." This is not the way in which natural selection works, however. Natural selection does not promote or produce a change in an organism. Rather, a change occurs because of spontaneous alterations or mutations in the DNA genetic code. Changes in the genetic code can alter the physical characteristics of the organism. If the new trait gives the organism a survival or reproductive advantage over its fellows, the new trait will be represented in the second generation more frequently than it was in the first generation. This is the natural process by which advantageous characteristics are selected...Sickle hemoglobin provides the best example of a change in the hemoglobin molecule that impairs malaria growth and development. The initial hints of a relationship between the two came with the realization that the geographical distribution of the gene for hemoglobin S and the distribution of malaria in Africa virtually overlap. A further hint came with the observation that peoples indigenous to the highland regions of the continent did not display the high expression of the sickle hemoglobin gene like their lowland neighbors in the malaria belts. Malaria does not occur in the cooler, drier climates of the highlands in the tropical and subtropical regions of the world. Neither does the gene for sickle hemoglobin... People with sickle cell trait possess one gene for normal hemoglobin and one gene for sickle hemoglobin. These children are more likely to survive their initial acute malarial attacks than are people with two genes for normal hemoglobin. Also, they suffer none of the morbidity and mortality of sickle cell disease. Therefore, the people with sickle cell trait are more likely to reach reproductive age and pass their genes on to the next generation. Red cells from people with sickle trait do not sickle to any significant degree at normal venous oxygen tension. Very low oxygen tensions will cause the cells to sickle, however. For example, extreme exercise at high altitude increases the number of sickled erythrocytes in venous blood samples from people with sickle cell trait. Sickle trait red cells infected with the [malaria] parasite deform, presumably because the parasite reduces the oxygen tension within the erythrocytes to very low levels as it carries out its metabolism. Deformation of sickle trait erythrocytes would mark these cells as abnormal and target them for destruction by [the immune system]. Since sickle cells are removed from the circulation and destroyed in the reticuloendothelial system, selective sickling of infected sickle trait red cells would reduce the parasite burden in people with sickle trait. These people would be more likely to survive acute malarial infections." http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #816 July 20, 2006 evolution, creationism-------"Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistant one"-------Albert Einsteinwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #817 July 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteMudskippers are fish evolving feet. Fins also used to pull it along are not feet. There should be examples of these fins developing into better and better feet. Are there? Why should there be? We have barely scratched the surface of the planet in paleontology. Every year more transitional forms are discovered as more places are researched. You have the typically static attitude of a creationist.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #818 July 20, 2006 Quoteevolution, creationism-------"Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistant one"-------Albert Einstein You are like a zen atheist. But without the zen.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #819 July 20, 2006 Quote Why should there be? We have barely scratched the surface of the planet in paleontology. Every year more transitional forms are discovered as more places are researched. You have the typically static attitude of a creationist. Dude. Every KNOWS the scientists that are finding these new fossils are static. Creationists are open to ANY idea.... As long as it fits the Bible that is.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #820 July 20, 2006 QuoteFins also used to pull it along are not feet. There should be examples of these fins developing into better and better feet. Are there? You take first watch, I'll take second. Wake me up in, ohh, 10,000 years?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #821 July 20, 2006 >Fins also used to pull it along are not feet. OK, call em flippers if you like. >There should be examples of these fins developing into better and >better feet. Are there? Dozens. Amphibians have everything from almost pure fins to lizard-like feet. Sea lions can walk on their flippers, but seals can't. Manatees used to be able to; now they can't even leave the water. Hippos have rear legs that are a decent compromise between flippers and feet. (Watch one in a pool sometime!) Compare a sea turtle's flippers to a land turtle's feet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windcatcher 0 #822 July 20, 2006 Okay hairyj, I got the stuff you sent me---I thought it was supposed to be a book! So after reading it can I post a bunch of attachments refuting it? Anyway, I will watch the tape and listen to the cd's; however, right now I want to postwhore. ( And later I'm going catfishing again and eating chocolate chip granola bars, so I probably won't get around to it tonight either) Mother to the cutest little thing in the world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #823 July 20, 2006 QuoteI'm going catfishing again and eating chocolate chip granola bars, so I probably won't get around to it tonight either mmmmm.... catfish.... I wouldn't mix catfish and chocolate chip granola bars tho. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windcatcher 0 #824 July 20, 2006 Silly Nightingale, didn't you know choco chip granola and catfish is the newest, trendy snack? Mother to the cutest little thing in the world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #825 July 20, 2006 I have a question with regards to this whole creationism and evolution thing. Let's assume for a second Adam and Eve were caucasion. Who had the first black baby? How about the first Asian baby? Did God just decide that a new race was needed and all of a sudden a caucasian mother and father had an Asian or black baby? Or is there a black adam and eve and an asian adam and eve etc etc? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
