Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 181 of 425 (540647)
12-27-2009 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Peg
12-26-2009 11:51 PM


Why can a small bird such as a parrot learn to speak, but an ape who has many of the physical characteristics needed for speech such as lips, tongue, vocal cords, cannot learn to speak?
Apes can and do speak all the time.
They just don't form vocalizations you are familiar with because they don't have the same mouth and throat structure that we have.
By the way, the things you listed as "physical characteristics needed for speech" are common to just about every single mammal.
The problem you have with your argument is that you are using the word "speech" when you SHOULD be using the term "communication".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 11:51 PM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 182 of 425 (540649)
12-27-2009 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by bluescat48
12-26-2009 11:19 PM


Re: Kind
bluescat48 writes:
Then that screws your definition up. If a kind is a genus, then lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars are the same kind. But cheetahs, ocelots, lynxes, bobcats, snow leopards, and cougars are of other kinds.
the definition of genus in an ancient language may not be the same as the modern day evolutionists definition
There are no specifics except that the animals of the same kind/genus could reproduce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by bluescat48, posted 12-26-2009 11:19 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Rrhain, posted 12-27-2009 2:12 PM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 183 of 425 (540652)
12-27-2009 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Blue Jay
12-27-2009 12:30 AM


Re: Kind
Bluejay writes:
Perhaps you would benefit from a brief primer on what's called the "Modern Synthesis" of Darwin's ToE. Basically, it's a redescription of Darwin's original ToE in terms of genetic mechanisms. So, basically, it's the idea that the mechanism behind ToE "has to do with genetics."
i havnt officially heard of the modern synthesis, expecially not on evc. When i say 'i think its more to do with genetics' i mean exactly that. I think populations become diverse due to genetics...not because evolution is creating something new or because animals change from lower life forms to higher life forms.
Bluejay writes:
So, please either clarify for me what you mean by "it has to do with genetics
i'll give you an example of how genetics have been proved to be a force in how life develops
we know that insects and microorganisms are able to develop resistance to pesticides, in time they can become immune and unaffected. This has often been cited as evidence of evolution occuring yet research has shown that immunity is a genetic factor already built into living things. In the 60/70s a genetist named Milislav Demerec, at Carnegie Institution in Cold Spring Harbor, New York conducted experiments using colon bacteria and Streptomycin. His findings showed that no change in heredity was brought about by the streptomycin treatment. What it did was killed the bacteria that did not have any immunity. He found that about one cell in every thousand million was naturally resistant in every generation he produced whether they had been exposed or not.
When the nonresistant strains died out, the resistant cells lived and brought forth progeny and dominated the population growth. But among them about thirty-seven cells out of every thousand million produced were of the basic type, sensitive to streptomycin. When he reversed the experiment by removing the surviving population into untreated broth, the nonresistant strain began to flourish again and dominated the population while the resistant strain continued to appear as at the start, about once every thousand million times.
His experiments explain why disease epidemics can wipe out most of a population, yet leave some untouched due to their having a natural resistance to the particular disease germs involved. Its all about genetics.
Bluejay writes:
Now, you are backing off from that statement and saying that members of a kind need not be interfertile.
What if something has genetical defects which prevent them from reproducing? There are many humans who need fertility treatment because they have genetic flaws...this can happen among the same kind. Again, I would point to genetics.
Bluejay writes:
Using your interfertility criterion, what could we possibly conclude about a group of varieties that shows a mix of interfertility and non-interfertility?
I said it earlier it could be that the chromosomes are not compatible and prevent fertilization.
Bluejay writes:
You cannot divide a ring into two kinds, because, anywhere you draw the line, you will be dividing things that are interfertile...A ring species is thus a grey area in your "kinds" classification, because, no matter how you choose to classify it, you have to violate the fundamental criteria of your classification schema!
as with most things in life, there are exceptions to the rules. Personally i dont think that just because some humans are infertile, they are not humans... exceptions will always be found, the question is 'WHY' are they an exception.
in the case of human interfertility there is almost always a genetic reason behind it for both men and women.
Bluejay writes:
Biodiversity is NOT a conglomeration of categories, but a continuous spectrum. And, all indications are that literally ALL organisms can be positioned somewhere on this one spectrum. That's why scientists generally agree with common descent: because there are no really meaningful, clear breaks between literally any two organisms on the planet that could be reasonably interpreted as evidence for separate origins.
I'm not so sure about that conclusion for the reason that there is no pattern of increasing chromosome numbers along any chain organisms. If a continual development of life were true, then as life became more complicated, you would expect to see a pattern of increasing chromosomes.
We are at the top of the ladder i assume and we have 46 chromosomes.
Yet the one-celled protozoa called aulacantha has 1,600 chromosomes! Other animals such as the deer mouse has 48, the striped skunk has 50, the cebus monkey 54, the cow 60 and the donkey 62! Even potato's have more then we do with 48!
this doesnt show a slow gradual progression to complexity...it shows that each group of living things has its own special chromosome structure and without the very specific number of chromosomes, the animal cannot reproduce viable offspring.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Blue Jay, posted 12-27-2009 12:30 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Briterican, posted 12-27-2009 8:40 AM Peg has replied
 Message 185 by bluescat48, posted 12-27-2009 1:44 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 187 by Blue Jay, posted 12-27-2009 3:58 PM Peg has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 184 of 425 (540660)
12-27-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Peg
12-27-2009 6:22 AM


Re: Kind
Hi Peg
Very interesting points, and I hope someone more knowledgeable than I will weigh in. In the meantime I would have just this to say:
Peg writes:
If a continual development of life were true, then as life became more complicated, you would expect to see a pattern of increasing chromosomes.
If you compare chimp, gorilla and human chromosomes, chimps and gorillas have 48 chromosomes and humans 46. It appears that two chromosomes joined together in the human to become one. In this context, I think it can be said that the drop in total chromosomes does not represent a corresponding drop in overall complexity.
It also appears that organisms with many chromosomes have relatively small ones and organisms with just a few have larger ones, which implies that all the info is present but is just divided up differently, which again would indicate that the actual number of chromosomes does not correlate to the complexity of the organism.
---disclaimer--- I'm not entirely certain I've got this right and would appreciate confirmation or correction from someone with a clearer understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Peg, posted 12-27-2009 6:22 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Peg, posted 12-27-2009 8:16 PM Briterican has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 185 of 425 (540681)
12-27-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Peg
12-27-2009 6:22 AM


Re: Kind
In the 60/70s a genetist named Milislav Demerec, at Carnegie Institution in Cold Spring Harbor, New York conducted experiments using colon bacteria and Streptomycin.
Do you have a link to this paper? I have not been able to acertain it on line. Also it would have been the 60s since Demerec died in 1966.
Edited by bluescat48, : added line

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Peg, posted 12-27-2009 6:22 AM Peg has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 186 of 425 (540682)
12-27-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Peg
12-27-2009 4:51 AM


Peg writes:
quote:
There are no specifics except that the animals of the same kind/genus could reproduce.
Then how does a ring species fit into your schematic?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Peg, posted 12-27-2009 4:51 AM Peg has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 187 of 425 (540686)
12-27-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Peg
12-27-2009 6:22 AM


Re: Kind
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
i havnt officially heard of the modern synthesis, expecially not on evc.
In Darwin’s time, genetics was not known to science. Gregor Mendel discovered the principles of genetics during Darwin’s lifetime, but his work wasn’t well-known until 1900, after both Mendel and Darwin had died.
The Modern Synthesis is the union of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Mendel’s Theory of Genetics. It’s what modern scientists are referring to when we say Evolution or Theory of Evolution.
-----
Peg writes:
i'll give you an example of how genetics have been proved to be a force in how life develops
[Demerec Milislav example snipped for the sake of brevity]
His experiments explain why disease epidemics can wipe out most of a population, yet leave some untouched due to their having a natural resistance to the particular disease germs involved. Its all about genetics.
I really wish you would at least acknowledge my point that this is exactly what the Theory of Evolution is. The process by which populations of insects become immune to pesticides over generations (which you explained beautifully, by the way ) is the fundamental mechanism behind the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution. We call it, natural selection (perhaps you’ve heard of it?).
So, like I am now saying for the third time, your it has to do with genetics is evolution.
-----
Peg writes:
What if something has genetical defects which prevent them from reproducing?
We’re not talking about infertility: we’re talking about incompatibility, or reproductive isolation.
Infertility means you can’t breed with anyone or anything else.
Reproductive isolation means you can breed with somethings, but not others.
The seagulls in the example are not infertile: some of them are simply incompatible with others. And, incompatibility is the standard by which you differentiate kinds.
-----
Peg writes:
I said it earlier it could be that the chromosomes are not compatible and prevent fertilization.
And what would cause the descendants of one pair of organisms to have chromosomes that are not compatible?
-----
Peg writes:
If a continual development of life were true, then as life became more complicated, you would expect to see a pattern of increasing chromosomes.
Why should we expect that?
Increases in chromosome number are not always "good": Down syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome, and hybrid infertility are all related to increases in chromosome number.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Peg, posted 12-27-2009 6:22 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:21 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 188 of 425 (540694)
12-27-2009 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Briterican
12-27-2009 8:40 AM


Re: Kind
hi Briterican
I brought up the chromosome point because evolution describes life as starting off as ‘simple’ single-celled organisms, such as the amoeba, developing into many-celled organisms. This implies that they gradually became more and more complex.
If an increase in complexity actually happened, then it should show itself in the cell structure. We should expect to find some pattern reflecting this as cells advanced 'up the ladder' because that is what the theory states.
The chromosomes are the key because they carry the information that creates the traits of the life form. A simple life form such as an ameoba does not have all the traits of more complex life forms (ie no eyes, ears or legs etc) so it stands to reason that it would not need as many chromosomes as a life form that has more traits.
As you pointed out: "I think it can be said that the drop in total chromosomes does not represent a corresponding drop in overall complexity....the actual number of chromosomes does not correlate to the complexity of the organism."
and I agree, but i take it further because I think the chromosome structures show that life was created separately and then multiplied "according to their kinds" rather then what the ToE states, that life developed gradually from single celled to more complex life forms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Briterican, posted 12-27-2009 8:40 AM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Nuggin, posted 12-27-2009 8:36 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 190 by Briterican, posted 12-27-2009 9:18 PM Peg has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 189 of 425 (540699)
12-27-2009 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Peg
12-27-2009 8:16 PM


Re: Kind
Peg, I'm afraid your post only demonstrates that you are pretty ignorant about these topics.
Let's review:
I brought up the chromosome point because evolution describes life as starting off as ‘simple’ single-celled organisms, such as the amoeba, developing into many-celled organisms.
No, it doesn't describe life as starting as a amoeba. Amoebas are pretty far down the evolutionary chain from simple self replicating chemicals reactions.
If an increase in complexity actually happened, then it should show itself in the cell structure. We should expect to find some pattern reflecting this as cells advanced 'up the ladder' because that is what the theory states.
Again, no it doesn't. There is no "up" in evolution. Things adapt to their environment. Being more complex is not necessarily a better adaptation. The extremeophiles which live inside the black smokers at the bottom of the ocean do not have arms and legs. If they did, they likely wouldn't survive. Stop thinking of complexity as a goal, or evolution as a race toward and end point.
A simple life form such as an ameoba does not have all the traits of more complex life forms (ie no eyes, ears or legs etc) so it stands to reason that it would not need as many chromosomes as a life form that has more traits.
You are mistaking MORPHOLOGY (how something looks) for total complexity.
Imagine two ameobas which look identical. One of them uses sugar as fuel. The other can use sugar or sunlight or cellulose.
Morphologically they are the same. One of them has a great deal more complexity than the other because biochemically they are radically different.
Complexity is not limited to (nor primarily about) how something looks.
Rice is WAY more complex than humans.
I think the chromosome structures show that life was created separately
But you aren't drawing these conclusions on any sort of knowledge in these topics. you are working backwards.
You've decided that because your mother was Christian, you are going to be Christian - and since you are "right" about being Christian, everything else must change to fit that.
As a result, you start with your conclusions and then go looking for science which you think helps your argument. The problem is that you don't understand enough to know if what you are picking is helping or hurting your argument.
It may be enough to convince you that you're right, but it doesn't stand up to the reality test and that's the only test that matters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Peg, posted 12-27-2009 8:16 PM Peg has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 190 of 425 (540704)
12-27-2009 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Peg
12-27-2009 8:16 PM


Chromosomal evidence further supports life's shared history
Hi Peg
Peg writes:
...but i take it further because I think the chromosome structures show that life was created separately and then multiplied "according to their kinds
I'm struggling to find a good example, but I think chromosomal structures are actually further supporting evidence of the connectivity of all life on earth through evolutionary descent. Here is one that will have to suffice for now...
Because of its highly compact genome, the pufferfish has become an important animal model in genome research. Despite the small size of their chromosomes, we have established both classical and molecular cytogenetic techniques in two pufferfish species, Fugu rubripes and Tetraodon nigroviridis (Grtzner et al. 1999b, Brunner et al. 2000). In order to find linkage groups which are conserved between pufferfish and humans, we hybridize pufferfish BACs, which share *orthologous gene sequences with humans (collaboration with H. Roest-Crollius and J. Weissenbach, Genoscope, Evry, France), on pufferfish chromosomes. In a pilot study focusing on genes from human chromosome 9 and X, we found a surprisingly high degree of conserved chromosomal **synteny between pufferfish and humans, which diverged more than 400 million years ago. Evolutionary conservation appears to be an intrinsic chromosomal property and can dramatically differ between chromosomes or chromosome regions. By mapping several hundred of these pufferfish clones with homologs distributed throughout the entire human genome, we will establish a first-generation homology map between pufferfish and humans.
Source: Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics
* orthologous: genes that have evolved directly from an ancestral gene.
** synteny: genes occurring in the same order on chromosomes of different species.
This sort of similarity between dramatically different species is further evidence of shared ancestry.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Peg, posted 12-27-2009 8:16 PM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 191 of 425 (540723)
12-28-2009 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Blue Jay
12-27-2009 3:58 PM


Re: Kind
Hi Bluejay
Bluejay writes:
The Modern Synthesis is the union of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Mendel’s Theory of Genetics.
i find it hard to imagine how the two can really compliment each other. Darwins theory says that all life developed unaided and from lower forms to higher forms in a gradual process via random mutations.
Mandel discovered the laws of hereditry that explained how plants and animals had factors in their genetic makeup that passed on certain traits from parent to offspring... a process that creates great variety, but not new species.
If one says traits are inherited, and one says traits are the result of random mutations that lead to new species, how can they be complimentary? You know the fossil record shows species breeding true for millions of years, no amount of mutation has been shown to change species from their parents form. When Genesis 1:12, 21, 24 says life would bring forth 'according to its kind', it fits the scientific facts.
Bluejay writes:
So, like I am now saying for the third time, your it has to do with genetics is evolution.
that may be the case now, but it wasnt originally
Do you believe that humans evolved from the apes?
Bluejay writes:
Infertility means you can’t breed with anyone or anything else.
Reproductive isolation means you can breed with somethings, but not others.
Thats not a problem for the genesis definition of 'kinds'
For example there are hundreds of different dog breeds but none of these varieties is another kind. Its not separated so removed from the original that its reproductive cells are unable to combine with cells of other a different breed. The only thing that can prevent fertility is size. But still, even these are genetically of the same kind.
Bluejay writes:
And what would cause the descendants of one pair of organisms to have chromosomes that are not compatible?
I dont really know, but we know it happens because humans with chromosome problems are generally handicap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Blue Jay, posted 12-27-2009 3:58 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Blue Jay, posted 12-28-2009 7:40 AM Peg has replied
 Message 194 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2009 2:17 AM Peg has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 192 of 425 (540731)
12-28-2009 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Peg
12-28-2009 6:21 AM


The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
Darwins theory says that all life developed unaided and from lower forms to higher forms in a gradual process via random mutations.
No, it doesn't. "Random mutations" did not play a role in Darwin’s original theory. The only thing that Darwin theorized was natural selection. The concept of mutation was the contribution of Hugo de Vries in the 1890’s, and was not fully combined with Darwin’s natural selection until the Modern Synthesis in the 1930’s.
-----
Peg writes:
Mandel discovered the laws of hereditry that explained how plants and animals had factors in their genetic makeup that passed on certain traits from parent to offspring... a process that creates great variety, but not new species.
The first part of your sentence is a beautiful description of Mendel’s discoveries. The part after the ellipses (...) is complete bullcrap that you just threw in there without any evidentiary backing.
There is absolutely no reason to think that Mendelian genetics cannot create new species.
-----
Peg writes:
If one says traits are inherited, and one says traits are the result of random mutations that lead to new species, how can they be complimentary?
Peg, I’m sorry if this offends you, but it needs to be said. Stupidity of this magnitude takes a lot of effort. Stop trying so hard to dislike evolution and make an honest effort to at least understand it.
First, neither one of those theories says that traits are the result of random mutations.
The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis says that new traits are the result of random mutations. Did you catch that? NEW traits---traits that were not present in one’s parents---are the result of random mutations. Furthermore, traits---even ones resulting from random mutations---can be inherited by offspring.
It’s such a blisteringly simple concept that your misunderstanding of it can only be caused by a wilfull attempt to misunderstand it. You don’t have to agree with it, but you at least have to acknowledge that it isn’t as difficult as you’re trying to make it.
-----
Peg writes:
Do you believe that humans evolved from the apes?
I believe that humans evolved from apes. In fact, I believe that humans are apes.
-----
Peg writes:
Bluejay writes:
Infertility means you can’t breed with anyone or anything else.
Reproductive isolation means you can breed with somethings, but not others.
Thats not a problem for the genesis definition of 'kinds'
For example there are hundreds of different dog breeds but none of these varieties is another kind. Its not separated so removed from the original that its reproductive cells are unable to combine with cells of other a different breed. The only thing that can prevent fertility is size. But still, even these are genetically of the same kind.
This is completely irrelevant to the comment you attached it to, and to the broader topic.
Dog breeds are not the example we’re discussing, and are not relevant to our discussion about ring species, which are a major problem for Genesis kinds as you perceive them.
Gradients in reproductive isolation translate into gradients between kinds as you define them. This means that the lines between kinds are blurred, which you state as an impossibility.
So, either interbreeding is not the basis for defining kinds, or one kind can evolve into another. Something’s got to give, Peg.
-----
Peg writes:
Bluejay writes:
And what would cause the descendants of one pair of organisms to have chromosomes that are not compatible?
I dont really know, but we know it happens because humans with chromosome problems are generally handicap.
The answer is mutations, Peg: new phenotypic variation produced by alterations to the genome.
What you are saying is that reproductive isolation between two members of a single kind is possible. So, since reproductive isolation is a primary criterion used by scientists to define the term species, you believe that it’s possible for a lineage of organisms to experience enough genetic change to become a new species. And yet, you’ve been adamantly arguing that this cannot happen throughout this entire thread.
Edited by Bluejay, : Added the word "only" in "...your misunderstanding of it can only be caused by..."

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:21 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 8:19 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 193 of 425 (540732)
12-28-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Blue Jay
12-28-2009 7:40 AM


Re: The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis
yes your right, Darwin called it "descent with subsequent modification"
he also said I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings. His theory was that over vast periods of time, these original simple life-forms, slowly evolvedby means of extremely slight modifications into the millions of different forms of life on earth.
Bluejay writes:
There is absolutely no reason to think that Mendelian genetics cannot create new species.
why?
Bluejay writes:
Dog breeds are not the example we’re discussing, and are not relevant to our discussion about ring species, which are a major problem for Genesis kinds as you perceive them.
They are relevant because some dogs cannot breed with other dogs due to differences in size/shape/genetics...but they are still the same kind.
If other kinds also cannot breed as in the ring species, then why should it be considered as an entirely new species?
Bluejay writes:
The answer is mutations, Peg: new phenotypic variation produced by alterations to the genome.
ok, so its mutations.
However, mutations have been shown to be harmful and damaging to an organism. They dont produce anything new and this has been shown in experiments for many years now.
So this is back to what i thought evolution was about to begin with...decent with modification by way of random mutations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Blue Jay, posted 12-28-2009 7:40 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2009 2:44 AM Peg has replied
 Message 198 by Blue Jay, posted 12-29-2009 1:57 PM Peg has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 194 of 425 (540780)
12-29-2009 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Peg
12-28-2009 6:21 AM


Peg writes:
quote:
i find it hard to imagine how the two can really compliment each other.
How is a method of transferring characteristics from one generation to the next which is not a perfect replication (as no chemical process is ever perfect) problematic?
Remember, Darwin was of the mind that the entire body provided the material for heredity, like Lamarck. Lamarckian evolution had the heritable traits collected from throughout the body and distilled into sperm and egg which is why he thought you could have, in the classic example, giraffes getting longer necks over the generations: In the course of living, one's body changed and your reproductive tissues matched since it was made of your longer neck.
The problem, of course, is that this means a parent that has had an arm cut off should, in a Lamarckian system, be more likely to have children that don't have that arm. This, of course, isn't true. But while Darwinian evolution avoids this clearly false claim, Darwin still didn't understand exactly how detailed the heritable traits really were. Mendelian genetics actually enhances Darwinian evolution.
quote:
If one says traits are inherited, and one says traits are the result of random mutations that lead to new species, how can they be complimentary?
Isn't it obvious? In order for traits to pass from one generation to another, they need to be packaged up somehow and delivered to the next generation: The chromosome.
But the method by which that chromosome is created is not perfect. No chemical reaction is ever perfect every single time. It necessarily mutates.
Thus, the very thing you are railing against is the only rational conclusion: Morphology is governed by the chromosome which is not perfectly transmitted from generation to generation. The morphology most adapted to the environment in which it finds itself is most likely to reproduce. Thus, we see heritability with mutation followed by selection.
That is evolution.
Your claim requires that the chromosome replicate itself perfectly every single time. Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?
quote:
You know the fossil record shows species breeding true for millions of years, no amount of mutation has been shown to change species from their parents form.
Incorrect. The exact opposite is true. The fossil record shows nothing but change with new species arising, mutating, and creating even newer species in the blink of an eye. The fossil record is overflowing with transitional forms.
Why would you have us lie about that?
quote:
it fits the scientific facts.
No, it doesn't. We have seen both in the lab and in the wild, changes up and down the taxonomic tree: New species, genera, families, even orders. In our own lifetime. Your undefined "kind" label is nothing more than a dodge to account for the fact that you cannot deny actual speciation. It is naught but the same "micro"/"macro" fallacy.
Again, how does a ring species fit into your scheme?
quote:
Do you believe that humans evolved from the apes?
Your question is a bit nonsensical as it presumes that humans aren't apes. But, if we go with the taxonomic distinctions between humans and other primates, then the answer to your question is no. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that humans and other primates evolved from a common ancestor that was none of them.
I am not my cousin.
My cousin is not me.
I am not descended from my cousin.
My cousin is not descended from me.
Instead, my cousin and I are descended from a common ancestor who is neither my cousin nor me: Our grandparents.
quote:
For example there are hundreds of different dog breeds but none of these varieties is another kind.
You really think an Irish Wolfhound and a Chihuahua are capable of breeding?
Ah, but you're referring to simple conjugation, so I ask you once again, how does a ring species fit into your scheme?
quote:
I dont really know, but we know it happens because humans with chromosome problems are generally handicap.
Are you going to say that it is always, no chance of deviation, result in less fitness? That it is impossible for chromosomal variations to result in equal or increased fitness?
Because that's the entire point behind selection: Those variations that aren't as fit as their compatriots will be less likely to reproduce while those that are as fit or more so will be more likely to reproduce. So even if it is a rare occurrence for these variations to come up with something good, the good ones will be selected for when they do come up.
So again: Are you saying that all chromosomal variations are always deleterious, no chance of ever being beneficial, ever?
Because you do realize that you are a chromosomal variation compared to your parents, yes?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:21 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 3:17 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 195 of 425 (540781)
12-29-2009 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Peg
12-28-2009 8:19 AM


Peg responds to Bluejay:
quote:
quote:
There is absolutely no reason to think that Mendelian genetics cannot create new species.
why?
Because the replication of the chromosome is not perfect from one generation to the next. No chemical process is.
Are you suggesting that something other than chemistry is involved in chromosomal replication such that it is always perfect?
quote:
They are relevant because some dogs cannot breed with other dogs due to differences in size/shape/genetics...but they are still the same kind.
Why? Wouldn't reproductive isolation be the hallmark of being different kinds?
But if you're going to insist upon conjugation as the defining characteristic, then how does a ring species fit into your scheme?
quote:
If other kinds also cannot breed as in the ring species, then why should it be considered as an entirely new species?
Huh? This sentence makes no sense. Can you expand upon it, please? A ring species is precisely the thing you are claiming cannot possibly happen: Inability to reproduce through a clear reproductive history. Each adjacent species is interfertile, but the two on the ends are incompatible.
By your logic, there is no shift in "kind" as one traverses the ring, but there is clearly a shift in "kind" once one finally reaches the other end. Each individual step is small, but the accumulated steps take you as far away from the original spot as you care to go.
quote:
However, mutations have been shown to be harmful and damaging to an organism.
They've also been shown to be neutral and beneficial to an organism. Surely you aren't saying that every single mutation is always, without exception, deleterious, are you? Because you do know that you most likely carry three to six mutations compared to your parents, yes?
You are neglecting to account for selection. Even if we assume that most mutations are harmful (and they are most decidedly not), those harmful ones will be selected against. The beneficial ones, even if they are rare, will be selected for. Accumulate enough, and reproductive isolation and speciation will necessarily take place.
There's no way to stop it.
quote:
They dont produce anything new and this has been shown in experiments for many years now.
There isn't a single word in that sentence that is true.
Not one.
They produce everything new and this has been shown in every single experiment ever conducted.
Here's an experiment that you can run in the privacy of your own bio lab. It's simple, inexpensive, and can be done by high school students:
Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.
But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.
How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.
But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.
Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.
But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.
But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.
Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.
So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.
There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.
You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.
We have seen evolutionary change from the smallest shifts to new species, genera, even orders and families, all right in front of our eyes.
Why are you demanding that we lie about this?
Simple question: What would it take for you to say that evolution has been shown? What experiment would have to be run and what outcome would it have to have in order for you to conclude that it was evolution?
Be specific.
And then tell us why you think what you are demanding hasn't been done. Note: Just because you are unaware of the experiment having been done doesn't mean it hasn't. When was the last time you were in a science library reading the literature to look for this information? If you aren't looking for the answers to your questions, is anybody surprised that you haven't found it?
And no, "But it's still a bacterium!" is not a rational response. This is not about speciation. This is about your direct claim that "mutations have been shown to be harmful and damaging to an organism. They dont produce anything new and this has been shown in experiments for many years now."
There's an experiment that you can do for yourself which has mutation happen not once but twice, both times resulting in beneficial results.
So do you still stand by your claim?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 8:19 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 3:34 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024