Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 242 of 314 (607994)
03-08-2011 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Peter
03-08-2011 9:09 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
That's some pretty confusing formatting you've got there.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Peter, posted 03-08-2011 9:09 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Peter, posted 03-09-2011 9:00 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 243 of 314 (608009)
03-08-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:43 AM


Re: Exceptio Probat Regulam
You claimed that:
We all have eyes from a common design.
I repeat, what are the design features common to human eyes and ant eyes? Where is the ant cornea? iris? etc.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:43 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 244 of 314 (608029)
03-08-2011 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:30 AM


Re: Exceptio Probat Regulam
Posters here have told me that all bones etc in being reused are therefore vestigial from previous bodies.
A vestigial structure is one that serves no function or a rudimentary function compared to the same structure in another species. Bones that are reused and serve a primary function would not be vestigial.
its makes my point about the poverty and not the point , you seem to be trying to say, of a common thing.
So what you are saying is that evolution tends to find viable functions for structures to fill instead of not using them.
Evolution here is making a absurd numbers claim.
No, that would be you. You are the one making the claim that vestigial features should be numerous if evolution is true without ever backing it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:30 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 245 of 314 (608030)
03-08-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:37 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
the flaw is that that a biological claim is based not on biology but geology.
The transitional nature of a fossil is determined by the morphology of the fossil alone. It has nothing to do with geology.
without the geology saying there has been great time the biology claim of evolution fails.
Geology does indicate long ages, so what is the problem?
The observation of the casts of bodies is not demonstrating evolution .
They could easily be seen as simply a diverse speciation.
So fossils don't indicate evolution but instead indicate . . . EVOLUTION!!!
Diverse speciation IS EVOLUTION.
In studying the fossils there is very little biology going on.
That's a straight up lie.
Biology is about living/or recently living tissue and delicate instruments to handle it.
Biology also includes how former species worked, how they were put together, and how they were related to one another. Fossils are an important piece of this puzzle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:37 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 5:12 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 246 of 314 (608031)
03-08-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:41 AM


Re: Exceptio Probat Regulam
I understand the radar genes for both dolphins and bats is the same.
It isn't. Dolphins use a fatty melon to focus soundwaves. Bats do not. Also, radar uses electromagnetic frequencies. Bats and dolphins use sound waves.
further bats is rightly in the bird section as it is only about a flying division.
Are house flies in the same section?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:41 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Blue Jay, posted 03-08-2011 2:51 PM Taq has replied
 Message 259 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 5:15 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 247 of 314 (608033)
03-08-2011 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:43 AM


Re: Exceptio Probat Regulam
having two eyes is a very common thing in nature.
Having no eyes is far more common. The vast majority of species do not have eyes.
From a common blueprint.
Eyes do not have a common blueprint.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:43 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 248 of 314 (608067)
03-08-2011 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Taq
03-08-2011 11:42 AM


"Radar Genes"
Hi, Taq.
Actually, Robert's right about "radar genes" (if, by "radar genes," you mean, "one gene whose protein product is involved in sonar").
This is what Robert is talking about. Here is another article (from Science).
To summarize: there is a protein in mammalian ears called prestin, which is involved in processing high-frequency sound. While the sequence of the gene for prestin varies widely across mammals, it is virtually identical in bats and dolphins (although, the Science article clarifies that it's only the functional parts of the protein that are identical), and the researchers have hypothesized that the same sequence of mutations occurred in both.
I haven't read very far into it yet. However, if the sequence for the gene for prestin actually were identical in bats and dolphins (which apparently doesn't seem to be the case), then I would personally be obliged to regard it as evidence for some (small) measure of "tinkering" design, simply because it would violate the nested hierarchy that serves as one of our favorite evidences for evolution.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Taq, posted 03-08-2011 11:42 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2011 3:56 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 250 by Taq, posted 03-08-2011 4:06 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 249 of 314 (608078)
03-08-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Blue Jay
03-08-2011 2:51 PM


common protein for common purpose
Hi Bluejay
I haven't read very far into it yet. However, if the sequence for the gene for prestin actually were identical in bats and dolphins ...
My understanding is that selection for echolocation produced similar modifications to the protein.
This would be similar to convergent evolution of skin flaps in sugar gliders and flying squirrels, just at a molecular level.
My bet is that selection on the protein has to do with improved ability to hear high frequencies, where echolocation works best.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Blue Jay, posted 03-08-2011 2:51 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 250 of 314 (608080)
03-08-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Blue Jay
03-08-2011 2:51 PM


Re: "Radar Genes"
Actually, Robert's right about "radar genes" (if, by "radar genes," you mean, "one gene whose protein product is involved in sonar").
In a prior post he spoke about the actual anatomical structures so I assumed he was doing the same in this post. My mistake.
To summarize: there is a protein in mammalian ears called prestin, which is involved in processing high-frequency sound. While the sequence of the gene for prestin varies widely across mammals, it is virtually identical in bats and dolphins (although, the Science article clarifies that it's only the functional parts of the protein that are identical), and the researchers have hypothesized that the same sequence of mutations occurred in both.
To be more specific, the cetacean and bat genes share some of the same mutations that are not found in other mammalian species and was not found in the common ancestor. However, the sequence is divergent in other sections of the protein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Blue Jay, posted 03-08-2011 2:51 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Wounded King, posted 03-09-2011 5:34 AM Taq has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 251 of 314 (608160)
03-09-2011 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Taq
03-08-2011 4:06 PM


Re: "Radar Genes"
It is worth emphasising the difference between similarities in protein sequence and in genetic sequence. There were 2 key papers on this subject in the same 2010 issue of Current Biology (Liu et al., 2010; Li et al, 2010). In both papers they principally focus on protein sequence, and find convergence. However when the same analysis is performed using the underlying genetic sequence the convergence is lost. In fact even just including another echo-locating cetacean, the sperm whale, reorders the trees to what would be expected rather than grouping the bats and dolphins together.
You can extract an anomalous tree from the DNA sequence, but only if you focus on mutations generating non-synonymous substititions.
The gene is certainly not 'virtually identical' even in the 'functional parts' of the 744 amino acid long protein. In comparisons between 14 species of bat and 4 dolphin species they only found 14 convergent amino acid sites, and these conserved sites were distributed amongst the various species.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Taq, posted 03-08-2011 4:06 PM Taq has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 252 of 314 (608172)
03-09-2011 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Wounded King
03-08-2011 9:26 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Wounded King writes:
That's some pretty confusing formatting you've
got there.
Thanks -- I try to be as obtuse as possible at every opportunity
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Wounded King, posted 03-08-2011 9:26 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 253 of 314 (608397)
03-10-2011 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Wounded King
03-08-2011 4:58 AM


Re: Bats filling an empty niche after flood?
Wounded King writes:
This creationist sees bats as just rodents who instantly upon spreading out from the ark found a empty sky and filled it somewhat.
so i see the wings and radar as just minor adaptations.
Another case of creationist super-macro-evolution I guess. Ape to human in 5-7 million years, no way, Rat to bat in a few thousand years, no problem.
Just out of interest where were all the birds that the sky was so empty?
TTFN,
WK
No evolution by selection/mutation but instead instead adaptation with biological triggers had to be the way.
The sky before the flood would of been full of creatures flying including the taradachy (sp) one. Also the issue of clean/unclean birds and the general slowness to refill such a great space would give other creatures a chance to take to the sky.
So rodents did. just as in water mammals found a empty sea to fill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Wounded King, posted 03-08-2011 4:58 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Taq, posted 03-10-2011 11:26 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 254 of 314 (608398)
03-10-2011 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Straggler
03-08-2011 5:38 AM


Re: Exceptio Probat Regulam
Straggler writes:
RB writes:
This creationist sees bats as just rodents who instantly upon spreading out from the ark found a empty sky and filled it somewhat.
Can I ask why just rodents? Why not monkeys or foxes or even humans? Why didn't lots of different creatures "instantly upon spreading out from the ark find an empty sky and fill it somewhat"?
Imagine a race of humans with wings and radar. By the terms of your argument this should be possible "instantly" given a nice empty sky. No?
Creatures need to be small enough to get off the ground. in fact birds have hollow bones as I understand.
Gliding creatures is quite common. The bible talks of snakes who do this.
Possibly other small creatures did take to the sky but went extinct later with so many others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2011 5:38 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 255 of 314 (608399)
03-10-2011 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Dr Jack
03-08-2011 5:43 AM


Re: Exceptio Probat Regulam
Mr Jack writes:
Robert Byers writes:
This creationist sees bats as just rodents who instantly upon spreading out from the ark found a empty sky and filled it somewhat.
O_o
Do you have any idea how diverse bats are? One in five mammal species are bats. 1 in 5! Bats aren't some obscure offshoot of rats, they're an extraordinarily diverse and variable group of animals.
Bats are an order of mammals, equivalent in significance to the group Carnivora that includes dogs, cats, seals, weasels, bears, red panda, civets and so on. Are you really suggesting that they can be written off as rats who saw the sky and wanted to fly? Orville's more successful rat relatives?
Come on!
so i see the wings and radar as just minor adaptations. relative. there should be no bat fossils below the k-t line.
"Wings and radar [sic]" are minor adaptations? What can possibly count as a "non-minor" adaptation then? If you're happy with bats, all 1100 species of them, evolving from rats in just 4000 years, and evolving sonar and flight in that time what on earth is the limit that stops evolution explaining the rest of life's diversity?
I just found out on wiki even people have trained their brains to use radar by noise for blindness. no big deal. no time needed.
Diversity in bats is just a quick adaptation after the flood. Within a century all there ever were in types had arrived.
no evolution as such.
creatures are limited by their kinds.
its not common creationist opinion but its demanding and reasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Dr Jack, posted 03-08-2011 5:43 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Huntard, posted 03-10-2011 5:15 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 262 by Dr Jack, posted 03-10-2011 7:18 AM Robert Byers has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 256 of 314 (608401)
03-10-2011 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Dr Jack
03-08-2011 6:31 AM


Re: Kind of The Point ....
Mr Jack writes:
the flaw is that that a biological claim is based not on biology but geology.
without the geology saying there has been great time the biology claim of evolution fails.
But this is simply not true. The strongest evidence for Evolution is all drawn from living species.
evolution relys a great deal on the fossil record. Without it evolution fails.
I don't see evolution being greatly based on biological research.
I mean by biology actual research of living life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Dr Jack, posted 03-08-2011 6:31 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Huntard, posted 03-10-2011 5:09 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 263 by Dr Jack, posted 03-10-2011 7:34 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 269 by Taq, posted 03-10-2011 11:24 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024