I think you mean to say that scientists realize that DNA offers far more answers and solutions than are currently on offer using the alternative methods.
No he doesn't mean this, once again your reading comprehension seems to have failed you.
And anyway they don't have access to DNA from fossil evidence so this discussion is moot.
Oh there we go, that would be the entire point of what RAZD is saying then, that when DNA evidence simply isn't available there are alternative methods that can be used. And when these alternative methods are used for organisms where DNA is available the phylogenies produced from the different methodolgies accord incredibly closely.
Total bollocks, the randomising element doesn't need to be in the DNA, it is provided by the variable nature of the environment, the stochastic nature of the physical world.
How can the variable nature of the environment affect some parts of the DNA but not the important information storing parts which spell out that we should have arms, legs, torso, head etc...I am guessing you are going to tell me now that some people are born with three legs?
How can the variable nature of the environment affect some parts of the DNA but not the important information storing parts which spell out that we should have arms, legs, torso, head etc.
It does effect that.
I am guessing you are going to tell me now that some people are born with three legs?
Well, there is this person:
But then again, examples abound in nature of six legged sheep and all other sorts of "deformed" creatures.
I am guessing you are going to tell me now that some people are born with three legs?
I'm not sure that is what I would have said, but as it happens it is indeed the case that some people are born with three legs. Huntard had an example and you can see Smillie and Murdoch (1952)(PDF) and Zhao et al. (2005) (PDF) for some further examples from the scientific literature.
It is more common for multiple limbs to be the result of incomplete twinning but actual duplications, such as in these examples, do exist.
For other examples of environmental factors that can radically affect normally stereotyped embryological development see Thalidomide, Cyclopamine, Warfarin, diethylstilbestrol and many others.
Since you could indeed predict a reasonable rejoinder to your question why didn't you just check it out for yourself? It barely took me a minute to find multiple examples of people born with three legs.
How can the variable nature of the environment affect some parts of the DNA but not the important information storing parts which spell out that we should have arms, legs, torso, head etc...I am guessing you are going to tell me now that some people are born with three legs?
Might I suggest you take some time learning about developmental biology before you make pronouncements about it? We're not speculating about systems we're totally ignorant of here, we're discussing an area of biology about which a great deal is known.
Can I suggest you start a new thread on what DNA can and cannot tell us about evolution etc etc etc.
It seems you have an axe to grind and it really has nothing to do with the definition of species.
I think you mean to say that scientists realize that DNA offers far more answers and solutions than are currently on offer using the alternative methods.
No, what I mean is that DNA is useful for living, or recently living, organisms, for a number of things, but mostly for determining hereditary lineages.
Where we do not have DNA evidence, we do have other evidence of hereditary traits that can be used to determing hereditary lineages.
We can also test these methods against each other and see that they produce similar results.
In any event, we see that speciation is determined two ways:
(1) by evidence of the division of a breeding population into two or more daughter populations that do not interbreed, and
(b) by evidence that the breeding population has changed over time to the point where an arbitrary decision is made to call the population by a new species name.
A definition of species is useful for the latter, but it is not necessary.
I note you have the [quote] thing figured out. There is also a dBCode help page available here, that covers all the codes.
Another way to see coding methods is to use the "peek" button at the bottom of a message. That will open a new window or tab that will display the raw text of that message, including the coding used.
If you are replying to a specific message, it's best to use the little reply button at the bottom of that message, rather than the big "general reply" button. That way links are displayed connecting the two messages. Also, you can elect to receive e-mail notices to replies to your messages via a setting at your profile page (see left end of links at top of page).
Again, welcome.
Adminnemooseus
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150
How can the variable nature of the environment affect some parts of the DNA but not the important information storing parts which spell out that we should have arms, legs, torso, head etc.
Huntard writes:
It does effect that.
So why have I just seen a program on television which clearly shows that DNA is coded such that it specifies which sequences of DNA code can change randomly and which areas should not be changed randomly?
None of the rest of us have even a shadow of an idea why you saw that, though I'm betting it had something to do with the "power" switch on your television being at "on." I saw a program on television that featured a sponge that spoke and lived in a little house on the seafloor. I will bet that you will have better luck identifying my program than I will have identifying yous, Big_Al. Would you care to release a little more information?
A time and channel might help narrow it down a bit. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Given your pevious showing on this thread the answer is probably because you misunderstood what the program was clearly saying. As has been pointed out though, without any details of what the program was it is hard to say.
After all you might have just popped in a DVD of the latest canards from the Discovery Institute, in which case you may have understood what they said perfectly. Although what you describe sounds like a remarkably tangible and specific claim to have come from the DI who favour vague and incohate arguments based on intangible and unusable metrics.
Given your pevious showing on this thread the answer is probably because you misunderstood what the program was clearly saying.
And given your previous responses to my comments and that you have already reached the conclusion that I have "misunderstood", I guess there's not much point in me telling you the name of the program. You will no doubt just reiterate this point ad infinitum.
Anyway, here's a clue. It's available to you all on bbc iPlayer.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
LOL!
