Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
589 online now:
dwise1, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 584 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,110 Year: 4,222/6,534 Month: 436/900 Week: 142/150 Day: 12/23 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Missing Link
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 31 of 80 (96806)
04-01-2004 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 9:46 PM


Handful of debatable examples? Handful of debatable examples?! Where the hell do you get that crap?

Fine. Tell me why they are "debatable". I'll bet that you can't.

[This message has been edited by Cthulhu, 04-01-2004]


Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 9:46 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:31 PM Cthulhu has replied

Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 80 (96807)
04-01-2004 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
04-01-2004 10:24 PM


i concur, they dont call it good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 10:24 PM crashfrog has taken no action

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 698 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 80 (96809)
04-01-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 10:22 PM


crashfrog, in mutation, the genetic material is slightly changed. It is slightly different, but still basically the same.

And in evolution, the population is slightly changed. It's slightly different, but still basically the same.

When you take a number, and add one to it, you've only slightly changed it. It's only a slight change to go from 2 to 3. But keep adding one, and you can go from 1 to 100. That's a pretty big change.

And of course we would need new genes to add any new body part.

There's not too many new body parts in evolution. Look at the vertebrate fossil record and you'll see that variation on a pre-existing body part is the rule, not new body parts. Arms are specialized legs. Wings are arms with feathers. Fins are feet with webs.

Adding things like body parts, or getting rid of body parts requires a great deal of genetic information.

Says you. Experiments with Hox genes, however, prove you wrong.

Even if it did, it would take a great deal of time, and the limb would slowly get smaller, and smaller, then finally dissapear.

No. In invertebrates, legs are turned on and off with single genes.

Then that would create your "chimera", which you so vehemotly are against.

I'm not against them. I'm just telling you that chimeras account for only a small fraction of transitional species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:22 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 80 (96810)
04-01-2004 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Cthulhu
04-01-2004 10:25 PM


they are debateable because only some believe that they prove that one specie evolved into another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Cthulhu, posted 04-01-2004 10:25 PM Cthulhu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Cthulhu, posted 04-01-2004 11:10 PM Mnenth has taken no action

Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 80 (96814)
04-01-2004 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
04-01-2004 10:30 PM


THERE"S NOT TO MANY NEW BODY PARTS IN EVOLUTION? You are saying, by believing in evolution, that all life came from a single celled bacterium!! Where are the "specialized" limbs there, huh?

quote: No. In invertebrates, legs are turned on and off with single genes.

we arent invertabrates. Neither are dinosaurs. Or birds. Sure invertabrates legs turn on and off with a single gene, but you say dinosaurs evolved into birds, and their limbs are far more intrecate than an insects.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 10:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 10:41 PM Mnenth has taken no action

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 698 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 80 (96816)
04-01-2004 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 10:37 PM


THERE"S NOT TO MANY NEW BODY PARTS IN EVOLUTION?

Yeah, it happened how many times? Once? Twice?

we arent invertabrates.

No. But we're decended from them.

Sure invertabrates legs turn on and off with a single gene, but you say dinosaurs evolved into birds, and their limbs are far more intrecate than an insects.

Does that mean that it takes more genes to control them? Would you care to prove that, or are we supposed to assume you have a degree in genetics?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:37 PM Mnenth has taken no action

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 3642
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 37 of 80 (96817)
04-01-2004 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 7:05 PM


quote:
Macroevolution has not be "observed" at all. Someone just takes the evidence, then they want to believe so badly that it is the proof that they were looking for, that they convince themselves that it IS.

Since I used to be a biology major, I read a lot of articles on this issue. Humans have only been looking for definite transition between species the last 100 years or so, comparing to about 4 billion years. So far, we've observed the rise of 1 new species in this life time. I'm still surprised that the info hasn't hit the headline yet.

In 1997, they found a completely new species of roddent in Argintina. This new species is called the tetraploidy rat. It has twice as much chromosomal number as the normal rat, and it is bigger, stronger, and faster than the normal rat in that region.

The rat came about when some errors occurred probably through mitosis or meiosis in a normal rat's sex organ.

This rat, obviously, has a lot of advantages over the native rats in that region. Since they've been around for only a short time, they haven't done much to gain popularity. But some evidence have suggest that they are going outcompete with the local rodents.

Again, one example that we can find is pretty impressive for only 100 years of observation, wouldn't you say?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:05 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by teen15m6, posted 04-01-2004 10:49 PM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 48 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 11:28 PM coffee_addict has replied

teen15m6
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 80 (96823)
04-01-2004 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by coffee_addict
04-01-2004 10:42 PM


it's still a rat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2004 10:42 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 10:58 PM teen15m6 has replied
 Message 41 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2004 11:06 PM teen15m6 has taken no action

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 698 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 80 (96828)
04-01-2004 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by teen15m6
04-01-2004 10:49 PM


it's still a rat.

So what? We're still primates. And mammals. And vertebrates. And metazoans. And living things.

Maybe you're not aware that the species classification taxa are hierarcheal? Because I can't think of any other reason you'd say something so pointless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by teen15m6, posted 04-01-2004 10:49 PM teen15m6 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by teen15m6, posted 04-01-2004 11:03 PM crashfrog has replied

teen15m6
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 80 (96831)
04-01-2004 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
04-01-2004 10:58 PM


just because its bigger and stronger and faster dosnt mean its a new species, thats like saying arnold schawrtsanigger (however u spell it) is a highly evolved human. evolution is one this becomes another, a dinosaur to a bird, not a rat to a rat, and not just different but better right? mind telling me how going from a dinosaur to a bird is a good thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 10:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Cthulhu, posted 04-01-2004 11:08 PM teen15m6 has taken no action
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 11:11 PM teen15m6 has taken no action
 Message 45 by nator, posted 04-01-2004 11:21 PM teen15m6 has taken no action
 Message 47 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2004 11:27 PM teen15m6 has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 3642
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 41 of 80 (96834)
04-01-2004 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by teen15m6
04-01-2004 10:49 PM


Man, are we desperate here.

The tetraploidy rat is considered a whole new species of rodent. It can't mate with normal rats, it doesn't behave like normal rats, and it's biologically different than normal rats.

IT'S A NEW SPECIES. Just look in the mirror and tell yourself that over and over. You are bound to understand the concept at some point.

I wouldn't be surprised if 200 years from now someone like you will say there is no evidence that some normal rats became this tetraploidy rat, therefore God must have created it 6 thousand years ago.

By the way, noone has yet to name this new species for some reason. It is simply known as the tetraploidy rat.

Edited: The average size of the tetraploidy rat is almost twice as big as the normal rats. It's huge!

[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-01-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by teen15m6, posted 04-01-2004 10:49 PM teen15m6 has taken no action

Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 42 of 80 (96835)
04-01-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by teen15m6
04-01-2004 11:03 PM


Evolution is change. Not improvement.


Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by teen15m6, posted 04-01-2004 11:03 PM teen15m6 has taken no action

Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 43 of 80 (96836)
04-01-2004 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 10:31 PM


So show us your evidence that they don't. Assertions carry no weight unless they are supported by evidence.


Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:31 PM Mnenth has taken no action

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 698 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 80 (96838)
04-01-2004 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by teen15m6
04-01-2004 11:03 PM


thats like saying arnold schawrtsanigger (however u spell it)

Not like that, dude. Trust me.

just because its bigger and stronger and faster dosnt mean its a new species

No. But because it can't mate with any other population of rats, does mean it's a new species. That's the definition of species, after all - a reproductive community.

evolution is one this becomes another, a dinosaur to a bird, not a rat to a rat, and not just different but better right?

Wrong. Here's an idea - if you want to learn about evolution, why don't you read a textbook on the subject? Everything you've heard about it from creationists is wrong.

Evolution is a process by which allele frequencies in populations change as a result of natural selection. This process results in organisms that are adapted to their environments and species that lose the ability to mate with populations they become isolated from.

Keep asking questions though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by teen15m6, posted 04-01-2004 11:03 PM teen15m6 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2004 11:22 PM crashfrog has taken no action

nator
Member (Idle past 1400 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 45 of 80 (96840)
04-01-2004 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by teen15m6
04-01-2004 11:03 PM


quote:
just because its bigger and stronger and faster dosnt mean its a new species,

No, but an inability to interbreed with other species of rat, and genetic differences from other rat species makes it a different species.

quote:
thats like saying arnold schawrtsanigger (however u spell it) is a highly evolved human.

Um, Arnold became big and strong because he took steroids and worked out a lot. Genes played some role in his ability to put on muscle and also his basic frame, but the rest had nothing to do with genetics.

quote:
evolution is one this becomes another, a dinosaur to a bird, not a rat to a rat, and not just different but better right?

Evolution is simply the change in the allele frequency in a popularion over time.

"Better" relates only to how the organism is adapted to it's environment. What is "better" today could be maladaptive tomorrow if the environment changes.

A rat to a slightly different rat in responses to a changing environment is evolution. A rat to a slightly different rat, to a slightlyy different rat from that, and so on and on and on until the current rat is a lot different and cannot interbreed with the parent species of rat is what was described above.

Can you tell me what mechanism exists which would be a barrier to the described process continuing forever, changing the populations into something that is totally un rat-like, given environmental pressures plus time?

quote:
mind telling me how going from a dinosaur to a bird is a good thing?

Hmm, maybe the ability to hover or glide would be good for both hunting and escaping predators?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by teen15m6, posted 04-01-2004 11:03 PM teen15m6 has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022