Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 2:10 PM
24 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,874 Year: 4,911/19,786 Month: 1,033/873 Week: 389/376 Day: 20/46 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   How many Kinds are there?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19811
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 16 of 20 (429228)
10-18-2007 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by James1200
10-18-2007 8:54 PM


Re: A genetic criterion for "kind"
Welcome to the fray James1200,

Two animals belong to the same kind if their genetic differences can be attributed to simple genetic recombination. If their genetic differences extend beyond what recombination alone is capable of doing, then we know that they are not of the same kind.

Congratulations: by this definition there is then only one "kind" -- life.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by James1200, posted 10-18-2007 8:54 PM James1200 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2007 1:15 AM RAZD has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 17 of 20 (429230)
10-18-2007 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by James1200
10-18-2007 8:54 PM


What Kind are you?
Are you also tyler111215 and tyler121515?

Are you any other members?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by James1200, posted 10-18-2007 8:54 PM James1200 has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3138 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 18 of 20 (429555)
10-20-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by James1200
10-18-2007 8:54 PM


Re: A genetic criterion for "kind"
Wise seems
quote:
I am arguing that natural selection played no substantial role in
the origin or modification of any of these morphologies. I do
not exclude the possibility that once the morphologies had been
established, selection (including natural selection) may have
determined which morphologies became extinct and which did
not.

to be situating intrabaraminc differences at the detail that Gould gave to the “morphologies” in the Burgess Shale
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/index.html
number 6
. One has to notice that Gould had written this book
Wonderful Life (Google Books)
as a change from a cone of increasing diversity to a large morphological basis to start (the 90s) with (this does not incorporate what I can cognize between differences of cones and ladders). It appears to me that Wise is using a 90s version rather than a 70s one of form.

This would not seem to permit *any* kind of recombination (for whatever the phenotypes mean genetically) if by that one has had the idea that a point mutation change does not change-the information- (whatever the information is here) content of gene based on bits for interbaramin differences. Perhaps you could say further what you mean by recombination. Croizat (character)recombination is not genetic recombination even though one might think back to that. What is the semantic information value that divides inter and intra baraminic differenes??

If there are numbers of baramins or kinds as Equinox proposes to start this thread @ some kind of magnitude (and any extreme coincidence excluded) then bits could be a way to measure something about em…

Wise asserted,

quote:
In fact, generalizing these observations to all
organisms, natural selection acting on mutations is an
unlikely mechanism for the origin of biological form
throughout the young-age creation model (see Wood
2005, for examples in the Galápagos Islands). The
intrabaraminic changes which are evidenced in the
fossil record (e.g. for the horses: Cavanaugh, et al.
2003) – and suggested by interspecific hybridization
– involve morphologies very, very far outside the
range of variation observed in modern organisms (as
the morphologies of modern organisms are outside
the range of variation observed in the older fossil
organisms). And, given the highly infrequent and
usually detrimental nature of phenotypically expressed
mutations, as well as the complex nature of many of
these past morphological characters, it is unlikely
that any of these morphologies arose by mutation.
Finally, even if the morphology were to arise in one
member of the population, natural selection fixes that
morphology only by differential death. This incurs a
death load on the population, making it impossible
to fix such a trait very rapidly (Haldane’s dilemma).
Especially in the light of the abbreviated time scale
of the young-age creation model, Haldane’s dilemma
makes it unlikely to impossible that natural selection
is responsible for fixing much or most of the realized
biological forms in earth history. It is more likely that
the only substantial role natural selection plays is the
elimination of deleterious mutations (i.e. minimizing
mutation’s damage in a fallen world).

It is crucial how one ‘reads’ the word “outside” here. Is this ‘outside ‘ a 70s or 90s consciousness of fossil and forms?? Is this a bottom heavy or not?

As for the postitive part this gets back to what I was starting to say about Darwin’s extincting F line
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=788&m=9#9
but this is ostensibly off topic in this thread according Equinox.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by James1200, posted 10-18-2007 8:54 PM James1200 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 19 of 20 (429632)
10-21-2007 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
10-18-2007 9:38 PM


Re: A genetic criterion for "kind"
Congratulations: by this definition there is then only one "kind" -- life.

I'll have some of what you're smoking.

He said "simple genetic recombination". According to that definition, I am not the same "kind" as my parents. All those germ-line mutations, y'know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2007 9:38 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2007 7:29 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19811
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 20 of 20 (429796)
10-21-2007 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2007 1:15 AM


Re: A genetic criterion for "kind"
He said "simple genetic recombination". According to that definition, I am not the same "kind" as my parents. All those germ-line mutations, y'know.

That's not really what he said - you need to use creationist meanings:

If their genetic differences extend beyond what recombination alone is capable of doing,

You can take the genetic code apart and recombine it into a different pattern, the way they wave away beneficial mutations and the like, because nothing is added ...

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ..


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2007 1:15 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019