|
Author
|
Topic: The Nature of Mutations
|
derwood
Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: 12-27-2001
|
oh, look who is back!
[Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-21-2003]
|
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3239 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: 03-19-2002
|
Re: Now for phase II
More than anything else these stats represent to me the failure of the schools to teach biology properly. It also illustrates the pressure brought to bear on both public schools and on companies that make textbooks to delete as much as possible any substantive reference to evolution and the major theories explaining it within the public school system. Now, creationists will WHINE  about their point of view not being allowed in schools (where,in a science classroom, it should not be anyway) while all the while trying to prevent the teaching of science in its proper place. Their mis-statements concerning evolution require an audience ignorant of the real theories surrounding evolution if they are not to be challenged.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 225 by truthlover, posted 05-20-2003 11:18 AM | | truthlover has not replied |
|
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 228 of 344 (40772)
05-20-2003 2:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 226 by derwood
05-20-2003 12:13 PM
|
|
oh, look who is back!
Scott, there are no experts in the field of evolution. salty
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 226 by derwood, posted 05-20-2003 12:13 PM | | derwood has not replied |
|
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3239 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: 03-19-2002
|
oh, look who is back!
[Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-21-2003]
|
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member
|
Re: Mutations deleterious based on environment?
Salty: Hang in there phospho. I agree with you entirely. salty FK: You do? I thought your position was that evolution has taken place in the past, but has stopped. That's not PG's position at all. His position is no evolution. FK
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
oh, look who is back!
[Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-21-2003]
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
oh, look who is back!
[Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-21-2003]
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 233 by wj, posted 05-20-2003 7:00 PM | | John A. Davison has replied |
|
wj
Inactive Member
|
oh, look who is back!
quote:
You see sexual (Mendelian) genetics has nothing to do with evolution except to bring it to a screeching halt.
So, Salty, at what stage did sexual reproduction arise in the evolutionary series leading to modern cetans?
|
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3239 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: 03-19-2002
|
oh, look who is back!
[Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-21-2003]
|
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 235 of 344 (40826)
05-20-2003 8:30 PM
|
|
|
Refresher Course
Salty: You see sexual (Mendelian) genetics has nothing to do with evolution except to bring it to a screeching halt. FK: No matter how many times you say it, it is still not true. Sexual genetics is like a hand of poker. Sometimes your offspring draws a hand of junk, sometimes they draw three of a kind, and maybe every once in a while one draws a royal flush. Natural selection will preferentially discard the junk and allow the good hands to have more offspring, thus accumulating these genes in the POPULATION. Of course if you hadn't slept through Crow's class, you would know this. FK
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 236 of 344 (40828)
05-20-2003 8:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 233 by wj
05-20-2003 7:00 PM
|
|
oh, look who is back!
I see you too have not read my papers or those I cite. Sexual reproduction has arisen many times during evolution and is expressed through totally nonhomologous means. There is no universal mechanism for the determination of sex. Don't take my word for it. Read my direct quotes from N. N. Vorontsov. For God's sake read before you kneejerk react. salty
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 233 by wj, posted 05-20-2003 7:00 PM | | wj has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 241 by wj, posted 05-20-2003 10:28 PM | | John A. Davison has replied |
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
Re: Refresher Course
[Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-21-2003]
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
Re: Mutations deleterious based on environment?
FK I still agree with what he has posted. If phospho wants to deny evolution I say all the more power to him. At least he has seen through the Darwnian fable. salty
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 240 by Redmahn Kassad, posted 05-20-2003 8:51 PM | | John A. Davison has not replied |
|
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member
|
Lesson Two
Salty: FK You know it all. Natural selection does nothing except to sometimes eliminate the unfit. It is not now and never was a creative force. Keep dreaming! salty FK: I don't know it all, but I apparently know a great deal more than you do. I realize you took genetics in the first half of the last century, but you may want to read up on mutations. You see, they introduce novelty into a population. Mutations are the creative force. Natural selection purges (preferentially) those that are harmful and preserves those that are useful. I will be glad to answer any further questions. FK
|
Redmahn Kassad
Guest
|
Re: Mutations deleterious based on environment?
Salty: FK I still agree with what he has posted. FK: I am curious. Which point of his did you think was particulary strong? The one where he defines beneficial mutations as not being really beneficial? That was my favorite. Humans are just a bunch of degenerate bacteria. FK
|
about their point of view not being allowed in schools (where,in a science classroom, it should not be anyway) while all the while trying to prevent the teaching of science in its proper place. Their mis-statements concerning evolution require an audience ignorant of the real theories surrounding evolution if they are not to be challenged.
™ Version 4.2