Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 7:27 AM
44 online now:
Percy (Admin), Tangle (2 members, 42 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,523 Year: 3,560/19,786 Month: 555/1,087 Week: 145/212 Day: 12/49 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Adaptation
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 115 (319321)
06-08-2006 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:49 PM


What is the code for legs?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:49 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:59 PM jar has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3826 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 32 of 115 (319322)
06-08-2006 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 9:43 PM


What's vague about it? You don't know what reproduction is? You don't know what a community is?

Well, it's just that I could define "kind" in a similar way and say that it is a group of animals with some common characteristics. But that wouldn't cut it in science.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 9:43 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 9:59 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16227
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 33 of 115 (319324)
06-08-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:45 PM


Someone who cares writes:

Linnaeus probably wouldn't have been able to classify the taxons exactly where the Biblical "kind" could fit in.

That's because there is no such thing as a "Biblical kind", in the way creationists (ab)use the term. The word "kind" is used in the Bible the same way we use it today: "What 'kind' of dog is that?" or "What 'kind' of ice-cream do you like?" It doesn't imply any fixed barrier at all.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:45 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:01 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3826 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 34 of 115 (319325)
06-08-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
06-08-2006 9:52 PM


What is the code for legs?

Sorry, I'm not far enough progressed in science to know the exact genetic code for each body part. But I do know enough that it is there in me. There is code for everything of a creature, in it's DNA. Maybe someone else here can tell us. What is the genetic code for legs?

But that wouldn't matter for our case here. The fact is the genetic code of a creature only has that code for body parts, tissues, cells, organs, and systems of that particular creature.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 06-08-2006 9:52 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 06-08-2006 10:02 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:04 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 115 (319326)
06-08-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:52 PM


Well, it's just that I could define "kind" in a similar way and say that it is a group of animals with some common characteristics. But that wouldn't cut it in science.

No, you could define it that way - it's just not very useful. I mean, every living organism shares certain characteristics - DNA genetics, protein-based enzyme chemistry, adaptation of population through evolutionary mechanisms - which, in your conception, would lead to the conclusion that all living organisms are in the same kind. Which, if you consider a kind to be "the group of all organisms decended from a common shared ancestor", as some creationists do, that's true.

The definition of species I've just laid out - called the Biological Species Concept - is the definition used in science. Determining if two organisms are members of the same reproductive community is, of course, not a trivial problem, especially if they're both dead. But in most cases its obvious if two organisms are part of the same reproductive community, like, if they were mating with each other when you observed them in the wild.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:52 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3826 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 36 of 115 (319327)
06-08-2006 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ringo
06-08-2006 9:58 PM


That's because there is no such thing as a "Biblical kind", in the way creationists (ab)use the term. The word "kind" is used in the Bible the same way we use it today: "What 'kind' of dog is that?" or "What 'kind' of ice-cream do you like?" It doesn't imply any fixed barrier at all.

Possibly. It's probably more like what you said above than a taxon level. So I can't really define "kind."


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 06-08-2006 9:58 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by AdminJar, posted 06-08-2006 10:06 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 115 (319328)
06-08-2006 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:49 PM


The code cannot be altered to allow changes that would start evolving new body parts or something.

The code is altered during meiosis. That step where the information is taken from the parents? Sometimes new information is added, through mutation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:49 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 8:54 PM crashfrog has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 38 of 115 (319329)
06-08-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:49 PM


The code cannot be altered to allow changes that would start evolving new body parts or something.

Why not?

What prevents it from happening? What is the stopping mechanism?


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:49 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 8:56 PM RAZD has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 115 (319330)
06-08-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:59 PM


But that wouldn't matter for our case here. The fact is the genetic code of a creature only has that code for body parts, tissues, cells, organs, and systems of that particular creature.

And since you do not know genetic code for body parts, just how do you know that is true?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:59 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 8:59 PM jar has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 115 (319333)
06-08-2006 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:59 PM


The fact is the genetic code of a creature only has that code for body parts, tissues, cells, organs, and systems of that particular creature.

Actually we find that's not true. Often the genetic code of a creature contains not just the information for the body parts that it has, but for body parts, tissues, cells, organs, and systems that it used to have, previously in its evolutionary history.

For instance, human beings can't manufacture Vitamin C. That's why we have to ingest it to survive. But we have the gene to do it, only it's in a deactivated state. Our evolutionary ancestors were able to synthesize that vitamin, and we inherited the gene, only it's got a stop codon somewhere in the middle, so it doesn't work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:59 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 9:05 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Isaac
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 115 (319334)
06-08-2006 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:39 PM


To Someone who cares:

The barrier is the genetic code ...? Sorry if I'm being rude, but none of what you wrote makes sense. Do you actually know what the genetic code is? And could you define "information" in a biological context please? Are you familiar with "gene duplication" by the way? Do you understand that evolution is a slow, gradual process (stuff like limbs would evolve over long periods of time)?

Creationists don't believe in evolution, they believe in creationism last time I checked :). Scientists accept evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Edited by Isana Kadeb, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:39 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 9:14 PM Isaac has not yet responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 115 (319337)
06-08-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:01 PM


Just a suggestion
If you would like I can set up a new thread just for you and one other participant, a mentor, that can help step you through some of the basics of the Theory of Evolution. If you would like that, just let me know and I will try to get it set up for you. That way you would not be facing a whole herd of folk at one time.


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 36 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:01 PM Someone who cares has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 53 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 9:17 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

      
    Wounded King
    Member (Idle past 2170 days)
    Posts: 4149
    From: Edinburgh, Scotland
    Joined: 04-09-2003


    Message 43 of 115 (319444)
    06-09-2006 5:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 25 by Someone who cares
    06-08-2006 9:39 PM


    The code of a fish doesn't have anything in it about legs. Now, even if a mutation happened, or millions of them, this would not change the code, the fish still doesn't have any code for legs, or for part of them, or to even start evolving them.

    All this suggests is that you don't know the first thing about developmental biology. I could show you a number of genes specifically, though not necessarily exclusively, expressed in the legs which are also expressed in the fins, so at least part of the 'code' for legs is there.

    This whole post is nothing but pure asserion, do you think you could actually support any of these claims with evidence? Even one?

    TTFN,

    WK


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 25 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:39 PM Someone who cares has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 55 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 9:33 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

        
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 53 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 44 of 115 (319497)
    06-09-2006 10:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Someone who cares
    06-06-2006 11:25 PM


    It's not like there is a mechanism for it, to stop a monkey from evolving into a human, or a reptile from evolving into a bird. It is the genetic code of an organism. The code is "preset" when the organism is born. There is code for only the traits and organs and tissues of that organism.

    if i were to take your post, and change it one letter at a time, could i ever make it say something different?

    No new code can be added to the genetic code of an organism to make it evolve into a different kind of organism. It cannot happen. It never has. It never will.

    duplication errors are a fairly regular occurance. in fact, i think you will find that humans quite regularly have a whole extra chromosome.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome

    that's a whole extra copy of a chromosome, not just an extra gene.

    That fish over there will never have code added to it, naturally, to make it start evolving legs or parts of them or something. It's not going to happen.

    except, of course, for the fish that do have legs.


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:25 PM Someone who cares has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 56 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 9:40 PM arachnophilia has responded

      
    kuresu
    Member (Idle past 588 days)
    Posts: 2544
    From: boulder, colorado
    Joined: 03-24-2006


    Message 45 of 115 (319596)
    06-09-2006 4:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Someone who cares
    06-06-2006 11:25 PM


    I'm going to do what arachnophilia suggested he could do, but I will change ten letters at a time.

    Original post:

    It's not like there is a mechanism for it, to stop a monkey from evolving into a human, or a reptile from evolving into a bird. It is the genetic code of an organism. The code is "preset" when the organism is born. There is code for only the traits and organs and tissues of that organism. No new code can be added to the genetic code of an organism to make it evolve into a different kind of organism. It cannot happen. It never has. It never will. That fish over there will never have code added to it, naturally, to make it start evolving legs or parts of them or something. It's not going to happen.

    Mutated post:
    It's nat loke thire as a mechanism for it, to stop a monkey from evolving into a human, or a reptile from evolving into a bird. It is the genetic code of an organism. The code is "preset" when the organism is born. There is code for only the traits and organs and tissues of that organism. Ne new cove can be added to the genetic code of an organism to make it evolvedinto a different kind of organism. It cannot happen. It never hzs. It never will. That fish over there will never have code added to it, naturally, to make it start evolving legs or parts of them os something. It's not going to happin.

    Oh, and I'm counting the spaces in this "genetic" code, so those are liable to change also.

    ABE: after screwing up several times (because there is no undo button online), I'm just going to show you the final change.

    The theory of evolution is one of the greatest scientific truths uncovered by man. It is a natural account of how the diversity of life came about. The theory’s basic mechanism is natural selection, and this determines how “fit” an organism is to its environment. “Fit”ness is a measure of reproductive success—the more offspring you have, the “fitter” you are. Keep in mind, this is a bare-bones definition, and does not reach the full complexity of what natural selection is. In other words, if you are better adapted to your environment, then you will most likely have more offspring. This pattern will continue.

    This is a total of 621 characters including spaces, yours was 603. I was going to change it by a hundred per generation, so it would only cover six generations (arachs initial plan would take 603, my first 61). This message is also a completely different kind (sort of like your reptile to bird thing). It moves from against evolution to for evolution--the other side of the spectrum, and as such a complete change outside of kind. Also, there is a addition of information, something you claim can't happen. And guess what, it's using the same letters.

    Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.


    All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:25 PM Someone who cares has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 58 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 9:45 PM kuresu has responded

        
    Prev12
    3
    45678Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019