|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Neither Evolution nor Creation are | |||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Its going to have to wait unanswered untill an adherent of exogenesis (life from space)comes along then given that the earth is only about 4.5 billion years old... 10 billion is the aproximate age of the universe and I think the consensus of opinion would be that single celled organisms didn`t appear imediately after the big bang..... Probably why no one answered it, just a thought....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: quote: Schraf I think you are missing the fact that 10 billion years ago is (aproximately) when the big bang happened and the Earth only formed about 4.5 billion years ago........ I don`t think there were even oceans let alone primordal goo 10 billion years ago.... [This message has been edited by joz, 02-26-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)Why can`t those alleles change? Which ones are they? What evidence do you have that these "species alleles" are a) different from the plain old garden variety, and b) unable to change? Or is it an off shoot of some a priori notion that speciation cannot occur? 2)Well lets define species as organisms that can breed sucsessfully to produce fertile offspring....Are horses and donkeys the same species? they can mate to produce hybrid offspring but those offspring are sterile... Surely if they were the same species they would produce fertile offspring.... So I`d advance the example of horses and donkeys as an example of a recently diverged (speciated) (macroevolved) line........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)Are you being deliberately obtuse? First as I pointed out in my post mules are sterile hence not a new species. Secondly mules are not a species they are a hybrid, the species involved are horses and donkeys.... 2)You mean that despite a grand claim that alleles responsible for an organisms species cannot change you cannot back this statement up with an identification of which alleles are the special ones and why they can`t change? Alarm bells are ringing Robert....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Yeah but aren`t they always female? So you can`t breed mules with mules to set up a new (sub?)species.... And don`t the fertile mules have to be bred to horses or donkeys? So all you can get out is a horse, donkey or (most of the time sterile) mule...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Insofar as No.2 is concerned you should go back and read my post again, upon close examination you will find... -That I never said mules were a species... -That I said horses and donkeys were species.... -More than that the fact that horses and donkeys can mate to produce (apart from rare exceptions) sterile offspring (this is where mules come in) shows that these two species diverged very recently.... -And no donkeys and horses are not the same species... IOW species A and species B mate to produce a sterile hybrid C. A and B are not the same species as is evidenced by the infertility of C. From this we conclude that A and B ancestry diverged recently, what we are basically seeing is a speciation in its end stages, as more changes are accumulated we expect that after some time A and B will no longer be able to produce C. We infer this because other obviously recently divergent species have lost the ability to interbreed, i.e Chimps and Gorillas... Does that help explain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
I`ll make it easy for you to find...
Here is the original post:
quote: And here is where I answered your misunderstanding the first time round:
quote: Now if you still can`t get what I mean all I can offer is to mentor you for reading comprehension 101.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Not really I don`t really care if someone is scientific or not provided that if they involve themselves science they switch on their "scientific" side.....If they don`t want to be scientific they shouldn`t be involved in science... If they want to be non scientific playing sports, painting pictures, selling things etc fine but if science is the subject a scientific approach is necessary.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Good now we are getting somewhere.... Well Equus only turned up in the last 2 million years so probably closer to the order of 10`s or 100`s of thousands.... Maybe you`ll find this interesting:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm It may be slightly out of date (I think that one of the species involved might now be attributed as a proto-giraffe) but it shows a morphological progression to modern Equines... I think what you really wanted was a fossil record of horses splitting from donkeys and I`ll look for something like that, however this shows philohippus et al as common ancestors and evolutionary cousins..... If they produced predominantly fertile offspring they would most likely be the same species... The fact that they can produce any offspring when other closely morphological species (Chimps and Orangutangs) don`t implies that lines diverge and untill a minimum ammount of changes occur can still hybridize to produce infertile young..... If not why can horses and donkeys produce mules, lions and tigers produce ligers but Chimps and Orangs not produce Orangazees? [This message has been edited by joz, 02-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Hey Toff neat little freeware bridge game...
http://www.gamehippo.com/category/5_title_2.shtml Its second from bottom named easy bridge....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Well forcing their bidding up to a slam then doubling and taking 3 tricks is always fun...... Ultimately unless the designed hands favor one partnership very heavily it still comes down to how you play your hand(s)... The really nice features of easy bridge are multiple bidding systems, the ability to deal specific types of hands (slams, games in various suits, etc) (I know dangerously close to "designing" a hand) and the ability to replay hands and tricks if you feel you can do better...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Mr P raised a good point here:
quote: Does this objection to ramming down throats apply only to evolution or do you propose to make ALL education an elective pursuit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
The quote:
quote: I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the author, he refers to those genes that lie at the basis of major changes as being constant WITHIN genetic populations. This is an entirely different kettle of fish to those genes that lie at the basis of major changes as being constant BETWEEN DIFFERENT genetic populations which seems to be the meaning you have assigned to the words... In fact what he says seems to be expected, the genes determining which population the organism belongs to are close to identical to those genes from other members of the population, while "Those (genes) that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes." ie the genes that are variable in a population determine things like red or brown hair, brown or blue eyes, height etc....... It is interesting that he mentioned this as being a "Darwinian paradox" my guess is that this short quote relies for context on some preceeding portion of the original document..... In short I think you made the mistake of assuming that genetic population refered to all life rather than distinct populations within this uberpopulation, if nothing else the use of populations plural should have allowed you to deduce that this was not the authors intent....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024