|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Increases in Genetic Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Who ever said that a potatoe was more or less complex than a human? I didn't. Nobody is accusing you of having that opinion. Taq assumed that you and everyone else would agree that a potato was not more complex than a human. That's why citing the greater gene count for a potato makes an argument.
Secondly, I did specify that they would have to have new base pairs that are genes when I said: Yes, but that was after you made a comparison based strictly on base pairs. I don't see any where that you refined the definition of greater genetic information to only be coding genes.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jbozz21 Member (Idle past 4007 days) Posts: 46 From: Provo, UT Joined: |
Nobody is accusing you of having that opinion. Taq assumed that you and everyone else would agree that a potato was not more complex than a human. That's why citing the greater gene count for a potato makes an argument. I am sorry I was being sarcastic with my comment, not to excuse myself but that was because Taq was totally missing my point. It doesn't matter how many genes a potato has because it wasn't the first living organism. Despite the fact that potatoes have more genes than a human, A organism that doesn't have the genetic information for arms and legs, head, spleen, kidney and whatever else. Needs to obtain that from somewhere. It has to have more base pairs so it can code for those things.By the way potatoes have more genes than a human because the plant is polyploidy,so many of the genes are duplicated which means that it does not have as many unique protein coding genes. So you can effectively divide that 39,000 by 4. That will give you a real comparison to human genome. Potato - Wikipedia Yes, but that was after you made a comparison based strictly on base pairs. I don't see any where that you refined the definition of greater genetic information to only be coding genes. What I quoted to you was directly from my original post, at the end. Second to last paragraph.
Mutations would have to occur which code for new enzymes or proteins that perform new, useful and beneficial functions. "all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44 "And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jbozz21 Member (Idle past 4007 days) Posts: 46 From: Provo, UT Joined: |
Morphology, the same way things were done before the advent of DNA. How does morphology prove they are different species?"all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44 "And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jbozz21 Member (Idle past 4007 days) Posts: 46 From: Provo, UT Joined: |
Then I'll tell you what I am doing. I am purposefully trying to present your arguments in the light that I see them. I understand you to be making the following bad arguments. 1. People who disagree with you are disagreeing with your definition of the term 'species' for the purpose of avoiding your arguments. 2a. Speciation requires that inter-fertility be genetically impossible.2b. Speciation requires a loss of diversity compared to ancestor species. 3. Common descent requires that the most recent common ancestor is bacteria-like. NoNukes you have not come up with even one good reason why anyone of these is not true. Except the last argument should say: 3. Common descent requires that the most *distant* common ancestor is bacteria-like."all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44 "And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
NoNukes you have not come up with even one good reason why anyone of these is not true. Except the last argument should say Sure jbozz21. Unfortunately for you, the entire discussion here is available for anyone to review, and the record suggests an entirely different result. It's true that you don't find the reasons given to be convincing, but I don't think anyone expected any differently.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jbozz21 Member (Idle past 4007 days) Posts: 46 From: Provo, UT Joined: |
So, although you told Dr Adequate that you won't accept scientific ideas that haven't been demonstrated by multiple, independent studies, you did accept one scientific idea that had not been demonstrated in any studies. This is a double standard: you can't demand scientific rigor from your opponents, then throw around untested ideas yourself. It has been tried:read this article; Human-Ape Hybridization: A Failed Attempt to Prove Darwinism Human-Ape Hybridization: A Failed Attempt to Prove Darwinism | The Institute for Creation Research In the end, the research failed and has not been attempted again, at least publicly. Today we know it will not be successful for many reasons, and Professor Ivanov's attempts are, for this reason, a major embarrassment to science. One problem is humans have 46 chromosomes--apes 48--and for this reason the chromosomes will not pair up properly even if a zygote is formed. Another problem is a conservatively estimated 40 million base pair differences exist between humans and our putative closest evolutionary relatives, the chimps. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99980.htm
there are important biolgogical restrictions at the DNA level for interspecies breeding. The chromosomes of the sperm and egg cell have to match sufficiently to start deviding. So the two species must be genetically close enough. Beside genes the DNA contains many repeated sequences, that have not meaning as far as we know, and these seem to be involved in determining the genetic match. There is still a lot of research done in this area. Interspecies breeding studies are not rare.
Behavior differences (different species do not have the same behaviors required to creating the mating behaviors. Physical (structural) differences ( the mating apparatus must be compatible to both sexes. Chromosome number differences (This is the key! They have to pair up to operate and if you are dealing with different numbers or different traits in the same location, NOTHING will develop! Internal chemistry differences ( timing of mating season, timing of fertilization, chemistry needed to penetrate the egg, etc. Sperm enzyme differences (similar to above for the sperm must have the right enzymes to penetrate the egg to fertilize. Chemical signaling differences (This is complex but it is essential the Internal Chemistry differences) Immune system differences in response to foreign bodies (sperm is a foreign body). These are just off the top of my head. All of these are significant in a big way. Besides some of the minor mating ritual differences that make lions and tigers not interbreed, they physiologically can interbreed and have interbreed if kept in close proximity like a zoo. Humans and apes cannot because of their chromosome differences. So it has never been tried since because it was a total waste of money and time and they know it will not work.
The Theory of Evolution isn't based on the definition of "species." It doesn't strictly matter what the word "species" means: the idea of a "species" is just a convenient way to sort information so we can use it for research or other purposes. Darwin's original book was called "The Evolution of Species" where he described that all species came from a common ancestor. Micro-evolution is adaptation and is very well observed. Macro-evolution is basically speciation. It is the major key to understanding how all species came to be if you cannot even have a solid definition of it, then it totally skews the line between macro and micro evolution. Which is what some scientists want because that is what they claim. If you skew the difference between macro and micro then you basically make micro-evolution look like macro with lots of time and it is easy to convince people that it is true that way because micro is well observed and "proven". But there is no solid observational evidence whatsoever to support macro-evolution. So if they well defined species and macro-evolution then their argument for evolution of species from common ancestry would become very weak.I don't know if they want to skew the line to purposefully deceive people but they are skewing the line and they are deceiving people. Whether or not that is intentional is not my judgement call. "all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44 "And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
How does morphology prove they are different species? Morphology is not a substitute for classification, it is part of the classification scheme for calling things different species. Here is yet another reference discussing the definition of speciesA Glossary of Zoology Terms quote: As long as you continue to require that lions and tigers are the same species, then we all know you are simply swimming upstream on the definition. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jbozz21 Member (Idle past 4007 days) Posts: 46 From: Provo, UT Joined: |
As long as you continue to require that lions and tigers are the same species, then we all know you are simply swimming upstream on the definition. NoNukes, maybe I should just ignore you. You have proven to be nothing more than a troll. You don't like to listen to any of my completely reasonable arguments. I hope you learn to have a more reasonable mind."all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44 "And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jbozz21 Member (Idle past 4007 days) Posts: 46 From: Provo, UT Joined: |
Sure jbozz21. Unfortunately for you, the entire discussion here is available for anyone to review, and the record suggests an entirely different result. It's true that you don't find the reasons given to be convincing, but I don't think anyone expected any differently. NoNukes at this point I don't care what anybody else thinks that looks at it and reasons with you because they are probably just like you. Belligerent, stubborn and closed minded. There is no convincing people like you. I really only care what God thinks and what open minded, honest people think. God knows I tried to reason with you, making good points. He knows I tried my best to help you see a reasonable argument which I believe is the truth. Open minded, Honest people will see my reason. Hopefully there are some of those people on here."all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44 "And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
t has been tried: read this article; Human-Ape Hybridization: A Failed Attempt to Prove Darwinism Nice source. When we look elsewhere we find that Ivanoff made three attempts to breed humans with chimpanzees. I'm not aware of any other attempts. Humanzee - Wikipedia
quote: From your ICR reference:
quote: And yet we know that we can form zebra/donkey offspring despite a much larger chomosome number mismatch.
quote: Of course the idea that the chromosome count difference disproves Darwin in some way has been long since debunked. Not going to look it up tonight but we've previously discussed a human with a pair of chromosomes short of 46 who was able to produce offspring. But the short of it is that we have three attempts to produce human/chimpanzee from male human donors, and nothing else for any other apes.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
NoNukes, maybe I should just ignore you. You have proven to be nothing more than a troll. You don't like to listen to any of my completely reasonable arguments. Apparently citing references is the wrong approach with you. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
When I said they cannot reproduce I didn't mean physically Non-physical reproduction? Really? What's that virtual reproduction? Spiritual reproduction? All reproduction is physical.
I meant physiologically and genetically. A very silly definition, given that all but the tiny handful of species that are kept in captivity must reproduce in the natural fashion. If your definition were used, we would have to attempt artificial insemination between every single species on Earth before we could classify any of them. That is absurd. I challenge you to show me a single reputable source that uses sperm/egg compatibility as the defining characteristic of a species. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
We're getting hung up on the definition of species. I think JBozz may not realize that the definition of species is well understood to be fuzzy and problematic. No single species definition suffices to cover all circumstances. One definition classifies tigers and lions as the same species (genetic compatibility), another as different species (exclusion of non-natural mating). Which definition is correct?
I think most people in this thread not only understand that the answer to the species question isn't particularly relevant to how genetic information can increase, but also that there is no proper answer to which definition is correct. Classification is both a convenience and a generalization. When you dive down into the details a classification system can often become insufficient, and then you have to begin considering the details that the classification system glosses over. So maybe we can move on from the discussion about the definition of species. The last post I noticed that dealt a bit more directly with the topic was Message 35, and no one's answered it yet. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
We're getting hung up on the definition of species. I think JBozz may not realize that the definition of species is well understood to be fuzzy and problematic. We're getting "hung up" on that point because it is a central part of the OP. I am not sure that jbozz21 has another serious point to make. He is well aware that scientists use a fuzzy definition. In fact, Jbozz21 wants the discussion to be about 'kinds' rather than 'species', but he wants to achieve that by redefining species rather than trying to define kinds. Jbozz21 has said that scientists classify organisms such as lions and tigers as the same in what may be a deliberate attempt to make macro-evolution look like micro-evolution because micro-evolution is believable. From Message 81 Macro-evolution is basically speciation. It is the major key to understanding how all species came to be if you cannot even have a solid definition of it, then it totally skews the line between macro and micro evolution. Which is what some scientists want because that is what they claim. If you skew the difference between macro and micro then you basically make micro-evolution look like macro with lots of time and it is easy to convince people that it is true that way because micro is well observed and "proven" Yes, he does later say that it is not his call whether the skewing is deliberate, but only after saying that some scientist want a fuzzy definition. What I would suggest is that jbozz21 untether his definition of macro-evolution or whatever it is that he calls evolution from the term 'species' because that term already has a scientific meaning that works against him. Whatever the definition of species is, he clearly does not want people citing lions and tigers as evidence of macro-evolution. And I doubt that any of us would have pointed to lions and tigers (or horses and zebras) in a discussion of macro-evolution. When a creationist talks about macro-evolution, what is expected is a definition of macro-evolution that refers to "kinds", whatever that means, rather than species. Having said all that, if Jbozz21 does start referring to kinds, it is possible that more ridicule will follow. But at least the discussion would be honest.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Darwin assumed that all of these different "species" of finches on the Galapagos Islands were different species didn't he? This was his evidence for the evolution of all species on earth from a single common ancestor. No, that's something you made up. Or rather, something that someone else made up for you, and that you've learned to recite without ever wondering whether it was actually true.
Scientists cannot even confidently classify species. They don't even follow a solid definition of Species. What does that say about the entire theory of evolution from a common ancestor? It's a sign that it's correct.
That is the basic argument of Creationism. It is true too. There has never been an actual recorded speciation event. Whether that's "the basic argument of Creationism" depends on which creationist you ask. For example, AnswersInGenesis have "No new species have been produced" in their list of "Arguments that should never be used". And creation.com says: "New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024