|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5051 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
abrown9 Junior Member (Idle past 4974 days) Posts: 8 From: Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I`m not exactly sure what kind of studies you are hoping (or rather not hoping) we can produce to answer your questions about `gains in information`and beneficial mutations. Do you want to see an experiment that documents the transition of one species to another, carefully documenting each beneficial mutation along the way? If that's the only way we can "win" the debate, then I guess you are in luck because (as far as I know), no such experiments exist.
What do exist, however, are experiments that document mutations that introduce new "information" to the gene pool, and are beneficial. For example, here is an experiment that shows that 12% of mutations occurring in certain E.coli allowed them to metabolize maltose, "a resource novel to the progenitor". Just a moment... Now, if we humans obtained a mutation that allowed us to metabolize rocks, SURELY that would be considered "new information" in our genetic pool?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4725 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
What evolutionary purpose does fingernails serve? Are they actually a mutation from claws?
Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tram law writes:
The second question first. Yes, they evolved from reptilian claws. As to their purpose, they are thought to have developed to help critters get over and through small branches more quickly, which was useful to the small mammals we descended from. I guess we never lost them because there is no disadvantage to having them, and of course, I suspect they also serve some protective function to the nerves in our fingertips that help us with feeling.
What evolutionary purpose does fingernails serve? Are they actually a mutation from claws?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
I suspect they also serve some protective function to the nerves in our fingertips that help us with feeling. I can attest that this is probably why we still have them. I had a bad nail on my left index finger for over a year. Without the fingernail my finger would feel numb and get injured more than my other index finger. Since my fingernail grew back I no long have numbness in my finger and it does not get as injured. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Are they actually a mutation from claws? For humans, yes. But the protein that makes up finger nails is also found in birds and amphibians, along with reptiles and mammals, like Huntard pointed out. See here:
quote: - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dennis.
dennis780 writes: I have no idea who you are, but you have offered no scientific opinion whatsoever. Well, I won’t deny that. Science is based on a foundation of logic. As such, science can’t happen until the logic is taken care of, and the logic here clearly has not yet been taken care of. So, let me try my best to point out why nobody likes your answers about measuring genetic information: If you believe that genetic information or genetic complexity is measured in nucleotides, then am I to understand that the organism with the largest genome (i.e. the most nucleotides) is the most complex, or has the most information? This is the implication of using nucleotides as metric. The problem I see immediately is that this does not jive well with your comments in Message 219:
dennis780 writes: So, you are saying that if random letters are changed in a book to any random letters, eventually, you will have a completely new book with a coherant message? In this comment, you emphasize the importance of message coherence. So, I assume from this that you think message coherence is somehow important to understanding mutation, genetic complexity and genetic information. (Feel free to correct me if I’ve made a bad assumption here). Now, I can’t imagine how one might use nucleotides (or chromosomes or teaspoons) to measure message coherence. So, from my point of view, your argument doesn’t seem to be enjoying much internal consistency. I suggest that it is because you haven’t actually formed a coherent idea about what information is, nor about how it relates to genetics, mutation or macroevolution. ----- Furthermore, there’s this statement from the same message:
dennis780 writes: Dr Adequate writes: Does the gain of a plasmid constitute a "genetic loss" --- or a genetic gain? Genetic gain. Continue. You have affirmed the existence of HGT, and have now affirmed that it is a genetic gain. Genetic gain is an increase in information, as measured in nucleotides, and thus, by your definition, is an example of macroevolution. Yet, you say that it is not macroevolution. This tells me that you haven’t actually formed a coherent idea about what macroevolution is either, nor about how it relates to genetics, information or mutation. ----- I hope this at least gives you an idea of why everybody has given you so much pressure over this. Edited by Bluejay, : "no" should have been "now" -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined:
|
This is a "Free For All" topic with a catch all topic title. As such, I tend to regard it as being a garbage dump topic - A repository of random dubious thoughts not worthy of bothering to monitor.
The reality is probably not nearly that bad. But I have some fear that a truly worthy discussion may happen here, only to be lost in the sludge. I am suggesting that if indeed such happens, please, someone propose a topic where said discussion can have a proper home with a quality topic title. That said, this message will now get buried in the sludge, to never have any real and useful function beyond giving me a momentary warm fuzzy feeling that I've tried to do some useful as a moderator. Or something like that. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: I'm going to have to say no. If a blind man typed for a million years (this guy can live forever for this exmaple) on a keyboard, I would doubt that he would even make any more than a few coherant sentences, and short ones at that.
quote: Incorrectly sequenced nucleotides, or damaged codons should suffice for this discussion. Unless, you prefer using teaspoons again.
quote: Three-toed horses are called hipparions by evolutionists. Evolutionists believe these were ancestors to the modern horse, and creationists believe that horses simply had split hooves, and lost the genetic codes required for that trait, giving a single hoof. It is irrelevant who is correct, since we all agree that horses in the past did not have a single hoof.
quote: You're preaching to the choir here Doc. I'm working my bag off over here. I put up one post, and have to respond to 5 people. Which begs the question, am I the only ID supporter around? Does anyone know of specific users that are ID's?
quote: You have not shown that new genes can arise through random mutation. But if you prove this, then yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Brown, we have already discussed the E. Coli experiments, and this is not an example of random mutation. The cell wall elongation it caused (among other things), which is detrimental in other environments--basically handicapped the bacteria, and their fitness level dropped. This is called ecological specialization, and is not support for random mutation.
quote: Humans would have been able to eat small rocks in the past (though it wouldn't have provided any nutritional value). The appendix provides a pouch off the main intestinal tract, in which cellulose can be trapped and be subjected to prolonged digestion. Though in humans, the appendix is shrinking, in the past it would have produced cellulose strong enough to eat raw meat, and quite easily digest small rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: High five!
quote: No. It's not about who has the most. More for me, more for me. Complexity of chemical arrangements is also a factor. As well, many organisms (including humans) have alot of 'junk' DNA that codes for nothing. This is also a factor (among other things).
quote: No, in this comment, I compare the chemical arrangements of nucleotides to words in a book. The doc and I are on this because I quoted a scientist earlier on that compared the information found in DNA to be different from that of specific chemical arrangements, much like the words in a book. If you want to jump into our posts, I'm diggity, but read back a bit so you are up to speed on whats going on.
quote: Yeeeess. And this genetic change comes at a cost to the organism, and also is not evidence for random mutation, but for antibiotic resistance. But there is genetic change, and new information is present. Dr. Adequate has a good point. Although I am not convinced the entire spectrum of organic life came from antibiotic resistance (HGT), it is still a valid point. Mooving on.
quote: HGT is not the explanation for random mutation, since this change is not random. As well, for HGT to explain the origin of life, we must believe that evolution created horizontal gene transfer, which in itself required various complex mechanisms, for which you would need to explain the origin of.
quote: Hey, you are the evolutionist. If it's HGT you want, go at it big rigger. Argue the point. No one here has offered any reasonable explanation to the origin of complex structures, HGT included. Thats your job. Mine is to make you look dumb....like right now. You only one here that is refusing to respond with any sort of intelligence. Even the new guys have scientific sources. If you want to voice opinions on my beliefs, send me a private message. This is a science driven thread, and if I state something that is unscientific, or not supported by evidence, feel free to respond.
quote: Everyone else, crashfrog, Dr. adequate, Abrown etc. all are giving me pressure because our VIEWPOINTS DIFFER. And that is perfectly logical. If your next message is you spewing random opinions on my beliefs, you can sleep at night knowing that it will be untouched.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm going to have to say no. To reading what I wrote again until you understand it, or to the bleedin' obvious proposition that I did not in fact mention?
Incorrectly sequenced nucleotides, or damaged codons should suffice for this discussion. Where "incorrectness" and "damage" are assessed how?
Evolutionists believe these were ancestors to the modern horse, and creationists believe that horses simply had split hooves, and lost the genetic codes required for that trait, giving a single hoof. They do? I'd not heard that one before. Can you find any of these cloven-hooved horses in the fossil record? Only we have plenty of three-toed ones.
You're preaching to the choir here Doc. I'm working my bag off over here. I put up one post, and have to respond to 5 people. You may be working, but I'm not convinced you're trying to be right.
You have not shown that new genes can arise through random mutation. But if you prove this, then yes. In the case of antibiotic resistance, I believe we did. You just have to do the experiment starting with a clonal line. Since they all start off without resistance, it has to arise through mutation before there can be any possibility of transfer. You can't transfer what isn't there. This renders your bibble about HGT in post 235 moot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Though in humans, the appendix is shrinking, in the past it would have produced cellulose strong enough to eat raw meat, and quite easily digest small rocks. Against stiff competition, that's the funniest thing I've read all week.
Brown, we have already discussed the E. Coli experiments, and this is not an example of random mutation. The cell wall elongation it caused (among other things), which is detrimental in other environments--basically handicapped the bacteria, and their fitness level dropped. This is called ecological specialization, and is not support for random mutation. Though this approaches it for sheer glorious mental confusion. Do you know what a "mutation" is? Or what "fitness" means, if it comes to that? Or "handicapped"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: By the ultimate sliver teaspoon. hahahha. During RNA translation, an incorrectly placed stop codon that prematurely terminates the message, errors during transcription, teaspoon taps frameshifts, intron removal errors, etc.
quote: No, because I never once claimed cloven hooved. I said split. Which is true. The third 'toe' was on the side, and shrank over time, while the two split toes remained functional.
quote: quote: Oh good, so disease, and harmful environments caused all of life. Thats nice. I don't suppose you have any evidence for this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: You know what is even funnier than that??? Using your websites to prove you wrong. HAHAhahahahhaha.
quote: quote: Handicapped - One who makes jokes for alternative viewpoints, but first does not check his/her own resources to see if he will look stupid. Handicapped.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You know what is even funnier than that??? Using your websites to prove you wrong. HAHAhahahahhaha. And in the alternate universe that you seem to inhabit, that would indeed be funny. Back in the real world, what is funny is that you seem to think that a website that says that the appendix used to digest cellulose is actually supporting your claims: * That the appendix used to produce cellulose.* That cellulose digests things. * That there are different strengths of cellulose with respect to this imaginary digestive function. * That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest raw meat. * That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest small rocks. Handicapped - One who makes jokes for alternative viewpoints, but first does not check his/her own resources to see if he will look stupid. Handicapped. You said it. Sometimes I think creationism is not so much an ideology as a cognitive disorder.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024