Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mamalian red blood cells
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 51 (500463)
02-26-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 9:19 AM


You seem to be assuming that in reptiles red blood cells are produced by the division of other red blood cells. But a few seconds' thought would show you that since a zygote is not a red blood cell, they must in fact have a mechanism for producing red blood cells from other types of cell. And then a quick google round the internet would have shown you that, like mammals, they make red blood cells in their bone marrow. So if you want a "just-so story" as to how mammals acquired this trait, here's one: we inherited it from the reptiles, from which we are descended.
However, as we know, you did not want an answer to your question, so you didn't bother to spend the few seconds thought and effort it would have taken you to find it yourself. What you wanted was ignorance, which can be had with no thought or effort at all.
Your remaining confusion about what evolution is and how it works could best be corrected by reading a frickin' biology text book.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 9:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 51 (500486)
02-26-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 12:13 PM


If you think I am using argument ad ignoratiam, then please spell this out.
Very well, let me spell it out. You are basing your argument on the things that you don't know about evolution. This is an argument from ignorance.
I have stated quite a few facts about red blood cells.
However, you have skipped the few seconds' thought and research that would have led you to an answer.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 12:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 51 (503328)
03-17-2009 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by shalamabobbi
03-17-2009 6:51 PM


Re: found the source..
Bot Verification
maybe their forum needs visitors from this forum to stir things up?
They ban people very quickly for such offenses as, for example, being right.
A shame, 'cos even amongst creationists they have some spectacularly dumb arguments, and much fun could be had with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-17-2009 6:51 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 51 (503457)
03-19-2009 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 2:05 PM


A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge ...
And a creationist is a person who engages in an unsystematic activity to acquire ignorance.
If knowledge was what you were after, a couple of minutes with Google would have supplied it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 2:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 51 (510336)
05-30-2009 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by slevesque
05-30-2009 4:04 AM


SOmeones got to help me here
Sure. He said that it duplicated 500 mya, not that it originated 500 mya.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by slevesque, posted 05-30-2009 4:04 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 2:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 51 (510429)
05-31-2009 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by slevesque
05-31-2009 2:22 AM


don't new genes in a species usually originate from a duplication ?
But then again, dawkins in the example uses, he dose seem to say globin genes are only in the vertebrate family.
You're getting muddled.
According to Dawkins, there was already a globin gene. In a certain species having this gene, about 500 mya, ancestral to us, fish, reptiles, etc, the gene was duplicated.
Read what he says over again.
quote:
The dozen or so different globins inside you are descended from an ancient globin gene which, in a remote ancestor who lived about half a billion years ago, duplicated, after which both copies stayed in the genome.
There were then two copies of it, in different parts of the genome of all descendant animals.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 2:22 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024