Message 59 of 280 (532422) 10-23-2009 11:20 AM

Reply to: Message 54 by Kaichos Man 10-23-2009 5:58 AM

So, you agree that information can be added, as long as other information is taken away simultaneously?

You do realize that this is still addition of information, right?

And, you also realize that this requires every mutation that increases information to be accompanied by a simultaneous mutation that decreases information to the same or greater extent, right?

The problem you'll run into here is that the occurrence of mutations is pretty much insensitive to the consequences of mutations. You're proposing some sort of pre-emptive, phenotypic feedback mechanism that regulates whether mutations occur based on what the results of their occurrence will be.

I'm interested in hearing what you'll come up with for that.

Darwin loves you.

Message 70 of 280 (532692) 10-25-2009 7:32 PM

Reply to: Message 64 by Kaichos Man 10-25-2009 8:06 AM

Um... how is this any different from what I just said?

I'm still waiting for your mechanism for explaining how to make this happen.

{AbE: the word "net" only has one "t" in it.}

Edited by Bluejay, : Addition---marked with { }

Darwin loves you.

Message 71 of 280 (532694) 10-25-2009 7:59 PM

Reply to: Message 69 by Larni 10-25-2009 3:42 PM

I'm a "Results" and "Discussion" kind of guy, myself.

Darwin loves you.

Message 79 of 280 (532855) 10-26-2009 11:05 PM

Reply to: Message 78 by Kaichos Man 10-26-2009 9:00 PM

Do you make it a point to assume that all of your opponents are complete idiots?

-----

I'm getting really sick of hearing this crap from you. Have you ever heard of dark matter? It's rather theoretical at this point, wouldn't you agree?

However, it seems that physicists not only embrace dark matter, but they also theorize about its relationship with the basic forces of the universe and can evenestimate its abundance and density in different regions of the universe.

I'm sure Larni can give you similar examples from the psychological sciences, and any of the handful of rock people at EvC can give you similar examples from the geological sciences. I don't think we have any chemists here, but I'm sure there are similar examples from chemistry.

It happens everytime a theory becomes well-established in any field of science: the theory becomes the basis from which we evaluate new information. That's the whole point of making theories.

It's normal.

It's science.

Get used to it.

Darwin loves you.

Message 84 of 280 (533112) 10-28-2009 9:07 PM

Reply to: Message 81 by Kaichos Man 10-28-2009 7:09 AM

Any chance you'll comment on my argument that all sciences treat their well-established theories as the baseline from which they create new theories?

Or, any chance you'll comment on why additions of information to the genome that don't result in a net increase of information can be treated differently from additions that do not not result in a net increase?

Or, do you just what to pick out another of my random statements to comment on and ignore the important and on-topic portions of my messages?

Edited by Bluejay, : Altered subtitle slightly

Darwin loves you.

Message 98 of 280 (533217) 10-29-2009 11:42 AM

Reply to: Message 89 by Kaichos Man 10-29-2009 12:57 AM

Since the term "mammal" uses the jawbone character in its definition, cynodonts are not mammals. But, it's just an arbitrary term used to represent evolutionary relationships. Cynodonts certainly were less related to everything that we call "mammals" than those mammals are to each other. That's all that matters when talking about evolution.

-----

Minor correction: the platypus is venomous, not poisonous. Poison is a defensive/passive secretion that works via ingestion. Venom is an offensive/active weapon that is injected into the bloodstream.

Sorry. Pet peeve.

-----

Correction: if the Cynodontia were derived mammals, all arguments about their evolution of lactation become moot. But, since, even if they were mammals, they would be the earliest mammals known; they still would represent an earlier stage in mammal evolution than everything else that is a mammal, so they would still be the ideal clade in which to study the evolution of mammary secretions.

Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

Darwin loves you.

Message 101 of 280 (533337) 10-30-2009 9:02 AM

Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD 10-29-2009 7:47 PM

One more minor correction: you used the word "mammal" to refer to "placental mammals," but the marsupials and monotremes are also included in the clade "Mammalia."

A minor point, but it might turn into a talking point if we're not careful, so I thought I should mention it.

Darwin loves you.