|
Author
|
Topic: Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution
|
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: 06-08-2006
|
Re: real relatedness vs fake relatedness
ou say some related organisms are really related and some related organisms only 'appear to be' so. On what basis? To get anyone to buy that, you are obliged to define the boundaries of real relatedness as opposed to your hypothesized 'illusory' relatedness. The distinction has to be testable. Once again, you misrepresent me; I clearly stated that I don't believe we have a current mechanism for determing relatedness: IF we ASSUME relatedness, then taxonomy, or genetics can tell us the degree of relatedness. This is true of Common Ancestry as it pertains to ToE, as well as paternity testing. The difference is, ToE assumes relation, and uses taxonomy and genetics to quantify the degree of relatedness. Paternity testing equally relies on the assumption that humans are related. Consider the assurance given by the PTC (paternity testing corporation - http://www.ptclabs.com/reliability.htm):
A major factor in increasing the reliability of test results at PTC is the amount of DNA testing that we perform in each case. The major information provided by a DNA test for paternity begins with identifying a genetic pattern that the child received from the biological father (or could have received). The test verifies that the tested man possesses that genetic pattern, so that he could be the biological father. It also determines how many other men in the population have that same genetic pattern. Using this information, the test calculates the probability that the tested man is the biological father, compared to the chance that any random, unrelated male of the same race is the father. Most laboratories only guarantee a probability of paternity of 99.0%. Although this sounds high, it is important to understand what it means. This means that the test has identified a genetic pattern that is possessed, on average, by one in every one hundred men in the population, and in any individual case the tested genetic pattern could be even more common. All of those men would show a probability of paternity of 99% for the same child!!! Paternity Testing Corporation continues testing until we achieve greater than a 99.99% probability of paternity. At this level the test has identified a genetic pattern that is possessed, on average, by fewer than one in ten thousand individuals. In fact, most of our tests identify a genetic pattern possessed by fewer than one in one hundred thousand individuals. Notice the proliferation of "could be", "could have received", "probability", and other qualifiers. Are all humans related? maybe, maybe not; Suppose that at the dawn of life, there were two separate life from non-life events; Suppose that in both cases, life arose on the same four base DNA pattern; If descendant's of both primordial soup's were alive today, would you be able to determine what descendants belonged to which original population? You would not. All life would SEEM to be inter-related, to one degree or another, but it would be an appearance, not a reality...
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 118 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 9:12 PM | | mjfloresta has not replied |
|
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3627 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: 08-16-2006
|
|
Message 92 of 284 (343737)
08-26-2006 6:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by kuresu
08-26-2006 4:17 PM
|
|
Re: Kinds, Species & Fertilizer
kuresu writes:
so kind is species? because that whole hybridize and make viable offspring is really, really close to the biological concept for species. That's what I was noticing. I had the understanding at first that 'kind' was analogous to Families. But if you take it down to the breeding level the animal population of the ark balloons to astronomical numbers. There would be no 'horse' kind. Noah would need at least one breeding pair for each of these equids: Anchilophus
Anchitherium
Archaeohippus
Astrohippus
Calippus
Cormohipparion
Dinohippus
Epihippus
Equus
Haplohippus
Haplohippus
Hipparion
Hippidion
Hypohippus
Hyracotherium
Lophiotherium
Megahippus
Merychippus
Mesohippus
Miohippus
Nannippus
Neohipparion
Onohippidium
Orohippus
Pachynolophus
Paleotherium
Parahipparion
Parahippus
Pliohippus
Propachynolophus
Propalaeotherium
Pseudohipparion
Sinohippus
Stylohipparion (From Wikipedia: Equidae - Wikispecies) I say 'at least one pair' because these are just the genus level classifications. Already Noah and his family are reserving a sizable portion of ark space to the housing of this one family of mammals. Take the horse thing down to the species level and you run into more than just space problems. Now you're talking about a lot of methane gas in an enclosed area, if you get my drift.
Archer
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by kuresu, posted 08-26-2006 4:17 PM | | kuresu has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 93 by jar, posted 08-26-2006 6:44 PM | | Archer Opteryx has replied | | | Message 94 by mjfloresta, posted 08-26-2006 6:52 PM | | Archer Opteryx has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Kinds, Species & Fertilizer
Remember horse is a clean kind. So make that 7 pair of each.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: 06-08-2006
|
Re: Kinds, Species & Fertilizer
I've never taken it down to the species level; everyone else has; I suspect the kind to be around the family level (within the constraints that i've mentioned repeatedly in this thread) However, I proposed a method of elucidating what organisms pertain to what kind; that method or criteria is to determine whether insemination is possible between organisms. Such insemination, under my model, infers relatedness.. I've also previously mentioned that hybridization experiments are rare. We have very little detail; So unless you've done such experiments or have seen the results of such, you have no basis for lowering the "kind" to the species level. That goes for each of the genus levels of equids you've listed; In the absence of such experiments between these genera, you can't factually determine that they can't inseminate, thus that they aren't of the same kind..
|
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3627 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: 08-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 95 of 284 (343741)
08-26-2006 7:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
08-26-2006 6:44 PM
|
|
Re: Kinds, Species & Fertilizer
jar writes:
Remember horse is a clean kind. So make that 7 pair of each. Oh, my. You're right. A few weeks of that and Noah's family would be feeling a lot of irony in that word 'clean'...
Archer
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by jar, posted 08-26-2006 6:44 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: 03-24-2006
|
Re: Kinds, Species & Fertilizer
can you get rid of the three negative in that last sentence. It's a little confusing. cannot determine that they cannot inseminate each other (double negative, making interpretation for me very difficult). the last part makes even less sense. it seems to me, though, that the opposite is also true (whatever the hell that opposite is--I can't determine what yuo are saying to begin with) if you meant to write that becuase of the lack of experiments in hybridization, we cannot determine that those genus of horse are of the same kind. if that's what you do mean, then the opposite is equally true. we cannot determine that each of those horse genus are different kinds.
All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by mjfloresta, posted 08-26-2006 6:52 PM | | mjfloresta has replied |
|
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3627 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: 08-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 97 of 284 (343744)
08-26-2006 7:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
08-26-2006 2:50 PM
|
|
Re: Huge Genome
jar writes:
And where is the evidence that supports this alleged huge genome? This looks like something there should be some fossil evidence for. Insects in amber, frozen mammoths. . Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarification.
Archer All species are transitional.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by jar, posted 08-26-2006 2:50 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: 06-08-2006
|
|
|
Message 98 of 284 (343747)
08-26-2006 7:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by kuresu
08-26-2006 7:08 PM
|
|
Re: Kinds, Species & Fertilizer
You are correct; the opposite is equally true; in the absence of confirming tests, we cannot definitively state that the many horse genera are related..
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by kuresu, posted 08-26-2006 7:08 PM | | kuresu has not replied |
|
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: 03-24-2006
|
|
|
Message 99 of 284 (343749)
08-26-2006 7:37 PM
|
|
|
list of families
you didn't ask for them, you're still gonna get them Crocodilia - Wikipedia18 extinct 6 living Tuatara - Wikipedia1 living Lizard - Wikipedia40 (living?) Snake - Wikipedia23 (living?) Turtle - Wikipedia25 (living and extinct) Caecilian - Wikipedia5 Caudata - Wikipedia10 List of Anuran families - Wikipedia31 List of birds - Wikipediaapprox. 200 (non bold should all be families) Monotreme - Wikipedia2 living 4 extinct Placentalia - Wikipedia20, as afar as I can discern Marsupial - Wikipedia20? I figure fish are pointless, or are they, as far as needing to be in the ark? This list covers Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians We so far have over 290 different families. We’ve yet to get to the phylum arthropoda”the most diverse group of animals. I'll do the arthropods later
All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: 06-08-2006
|
|
|
Message 100 of 284 (343751)
08-26-2006 7:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by kuresu
08-26-2006 7:37 PM
|
|
Re: list of families
Thanks for all your work, it's appreciated; Yes, fish would be unnecessary Edited by mjfloresta, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by kuresu, posted 08-26-2006 7:37 PM | | kuresu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 102 by kuresu, posted 08-26-2006 8:22 PM | | mjfloresta has not replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 101 of 284 (343757)
08-26-2006 8:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by kuresu
08-26-2006 4:54 PM
|
|
Re: Marsupials? and others?
you know, we've argued the cheetah before. if I recall correctly, the limited variability it has is thanks to our hunting down cheetahs and destroying their habitat, forcing them into separated, very small, populations. not genetic's fault for reduced variability, our fault. It doesn't matter what caused the bottleneck, human or otherwise, the genetic situation demonstrates how the genetic material reacts under such extreme circumstances.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by kuresu, posted 08-26-2006 4:54 PM | | kuresu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 104 by kuresu, posted 08-26-2006 8:26 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: 03-24-2006
|
Re: list of families
you know why I'm doing it right? to find out the number of families you would have to put on the ark. family is close enough to kind for you--you don't want to go lower, or else the number to put on the ark makes it impossible. trying to show even family is impossible.
All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by mjfloresta, posted 08-26-2006 7:46 PM | | mjfloresta has not replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 103 of 284 (343760)
08-26-2006 8:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by kuresu
08-26-2006 7:37 PM
|
|
Re: list of families
At this level, humans, bonobos, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are all members of the family Hominidae. Therefore, the other apes need not be factored in as different kinds under this model, as they are all descendents of Noah and his extended family. Kinda puts a new twist on the assertion one didn't descend from apes if most apes descended from humans. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by kuresu, posted 08-26-2006 7:37 PM | | kuresu has not replied |
|
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: 03-24-2006
|
|
|
Message 104 of 284 (343761)
08-26-2006 8:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by Faith
08-26-2006 8:21 PM
|
|
Re: Marsupials? and others?
but that path isn't the inevitable path of all species. not everyone will go through a bottle neck, and then, given enough time and a contiguous habitat you can reintroduce variety. The cheetahs have no contiguous environment, so unless we help them, they are screwed.
All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 8:21 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
Re: the Cheetah is important though
Most civilizations do.. and those civilzations are by rivers. The details of the 'flood' myth of each one is vastly different. But, considering that civilization tended to grow up around rivers, because that is a source of both irrigation and commerce, having flood myths shouldn't be suprising at all.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by mjfloresta, posted 08-26-2006 5:16 PM | | mjfloresta has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 108 by kuresu, posted 08-26-2006 8:31 PM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2