Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Extent of Mutational Capability
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 106 of 279 (793295)
10-25-2016 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Gregory Rogers
10-24-2016 9:44 AM


Re: Proposition: Another Angle
Yada, Yada, Yada.
Word salads.
All the emprical, verifiable evidence from all over the world show that the first form of life as we know it were some forms of prokaryotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Gregory Rogers, posted 10-24-2016 9:44 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

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


Message 107 of 279 (793301)
10-25-2016 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by herebedragons
10-24-2016 2:10 PM


Re: Parentless Clades
... So cladistics does not test to determine IF they are related but rather HOW they are related. This cladogram is then the hypothesis as to how the organisms are related and possibly how a particular character has evolved.
I would say "HOW they could be related" -- as you say it is an hypothesis.
IF there were no common markers then you could not develop a cladogram ...
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : i

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 91 by herebedragons, posted 10-24-2016 2:10 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 108 of 279 (793302)
10-25-2016 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
10-25-2016 7:42 AM


Re: Clades
RAZD writes:
You can also throw Homo neanderthalus in the mix as sister species in clade Homo, closer to H.sapiens than the Pan clade.
This is where it gets messy, Neanderthals are now - along with at least 4 other human forms mostly classed as sub-species of Homo sapiens. They can't be species as they interbred. H. sapiens sapiens seems to be a bit of a mongrel. This has all changed since I formally studied it.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2016 7:42 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2016 11:43 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 10-25-2016 3:16 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 109 of 279 (793306)
10-25-2016 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Tangle
10-25-2016 10:45 AM


Re: Clades
This is where it gets messy, Neanderthals are now - along with at least 4 other human forms mostly classed as sub-species of Homo sapiens. ...
Yeah, I'll accept that, the braided pattern on Peter & Rosemary Grant, Darwin's Finches and Evolution and Interweaving Evolution & Hybrid Vigor
quote:
So the tree became a bush becomes an interlinked\braided bush.
         A
         |
         |
        / \
       /   \
      |     |
     / \   / \
    |   \ /   |
    |    |    |
    |    |    |
    B    C    D
Where C is not the same as A, but is a braided mosaic of B and D. Note that A, B, C and D still form a clade descended from A.
This does not mean that evolution does not happen, just that the process is not a cut-and-dried cookie-cutter proposition. This also means that the definition of "species" is a little muddier than before ... and it was muddied before.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 108 by Tangle, posted 10-25-2016 10:45 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Tangle, posted 10-25-2016 2:12 PM RAZD has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 110 of 279 (793310)
10-25-2016 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by RAZD
10-25-2016 11:43 AM


Re: Clades
RAZD writes:
Where C is not the same as A, but is a braided mosaic of B and D. Note that A, B, C and D still form a clade descended from A.
Sort of but in the homo genus it seems that B, interbred with C,D, E and F. And C interbred with D & E but not F and so on depending who travelled where.
All 5 sub-species co-existed and as late as 40,000 years ago.
It makes you wonder whether all/most species whilst they're in the process of speciation meet up breed, move away, meet again etc etc and either finally separate for good like lions and tigers but can in principal interbreed or one outcompetes the others - as H. sapiens sapiens.
I feels a little like horizontal gene transfer. Life is messy.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2016 11:43 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by dwise1, posted 10-25-2016 2:52 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2016 4:41 PM Tangle has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 111 of 279 (793311)
10-25-2016 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Gregory Rogers
10-21-2016 11:31 AM


Re: Greg, Please Don't Give Up Yet!
Greg, what is your background with this "creationism-vs-evolution debate"?
The first thing you should know is that "creation science" itself is a deliberately crafted legalistic deception. For most of the 20th century (circa 1920 to 1968, during which the "monkey laws" were in effect), anti-evolutionists could be open about having purely religious reasons for opposing the teaching of evolution in the schools. But then Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) led to the striking down of the "monkey laws" and after a few failed attempts the anti-evolutionists learned that the courts no longer allowed them to ban evolution for religious reasons. In response, they superficially scrubbed their published materials of all explicit references to the Bible and to God (who suddenly became an "unnamed generic Creator") and dishonestly claimed (ie, lied) to the courts that their objection to evolution was for "purely scientific reasons." That is traditionally known as their playing the game of "Hide the Bible." That deception was exposed in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), whereupon the anti-evolutionists switched to playing the game of "Hide the Creationism" by calling it "intelligent design" instead of "creation science."
"Creation science" is based on their "Two Model Approach", in which they "define" two "mutually exclusive models", the "creation model" and the "evolution model", and then set about attacking their "evolution model" and proclaiming that that proves their "creation model" without ever having to present, support, or defend that "model" -- in fact, repeatedly in creationist-run debates the creationists steadfastly refuse any discussion of their "creation model". Here is how Dr. Henry Morris, one of the Founding Fathers of "Creation Science", described the "Two Model Approach" to me (my emphasis added):
quote:
"The evolution model, in general terms, is not just Darwinism, but any naturalistic concept of origins (including most of the world's religions, ancient and modern). The creation model, in general terms, is not just the Biblical record, but any cosmogony which postulates a transcendent personal Creator to account for the universe and its basic components. Evolution says one CAN explain the origin and development of all things in terms of continuing, natural processes. Creation says one CANNOT so explain them."
In reality, the "creation model" is very highly restricted to young-earth creationism, which results in the vast majority of theistic creationist ideas (including most Christian ideas about Creation) being lumped into the "only alternative", their "atheistic" "evolution model." So of course they never dare to present or discuss their "creation model", since that would expose their game of "Hide the Bible."
The other consequence of the "Two Model Approach" is that their "evolution model" has virtually nothing at all to do with evolution. At best, it is a caricature misrepresentation of evolution, a strawman for creationists to attack and crow about having defeated while steering clear of actual evolution itself. You yourself presented one such misrepresentation of evolution, also echoed by CRR: the idea that evolution would require animals "evolving from one kind to another", such as a cat "evolving" into a dog (even though from the cat's perspective that would be devolving). As I and others here have described, not only does evolution not say or require that but such an event would be completely contrary to evolution. So when a creationist "disproves" evolution by pointing out that we never see a cat evolving into a dog, he is actually lying to you.
The approach you're taking in your year-old investigation appears to be one of collecting what both sides have to say. You are apparently treating what you collect as being different interpretations of the evidence (a commonly expressed creationist position and argument). But that cannot work when one side (the creationists) bases its "interpretations" on a misrepresentation of the other side. It would be like someone "disproving" Christianity by misrepresenting Communion as being nothing but cannabalism. Or "true Christians" redefining what Christianity is in order to claim that Catholics are not Christians -- a friend listens regularly to The Jesus Christ Show and it really gets Jesus angry whenever he hears that nonsense about Catholics not being Christians.
So part of your investigation also needs to pay attention to whether both sides are being honest and truthful in what they say about the other side. In particular, are creationists being honest and truthful about how they represent evolution? Or are they misrepresenting it in order to turn it into a strawman thus deceiving you and themselves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Gregory Rogers, posted 10-21-2016 11:31 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 279 (793312)
10-25-2016 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
10-25-2016 7:42 AM


Re: Clades
You can also throw Homo neanderthalus in the mix as sister species in clade Homo, closer to H.sapiens than the Pan clade.
I specifically said "living organisms".
Of course, it would indeed also be true if I'd said all species living or dead, but that wouldn't be testable, so it wouldn't be a testable prediction of the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2016 7:42 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 113 of 279 (793314)
10-25-2016 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tangle
10-25-2016 2:12 PM


Re: Clades
It makes you wonder whether all/most species whilst they're in the process of speciation meet up breed, move away, meet again etc etc and either finally separate for good like lions and tigers but can in principal interbreed or one outcompetes the others
That interbreeding happens a lot. A number of examples of canine hybrids and feline hybrids happen in the wild -- see my Message 9 for links. And a local creationist seems to love his "chicken or the egg" argument in which his answer is "two chickens", but they need to completely re-evolve their reproductive systems simultaneously, or so he claims (it makes absolutely no sense to me either). In reality, chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) are still able to interbreed with their ancestral species, the red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus), such that it's now very difficult to find a red jungle fowl that is not a chicken hybrid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_junglefowl#Hybridisation).
Yes, life can be very messy.
Edited by dwise1, : "to find" and added a Wikipedia link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Tangle, posted 10-25-2016 2:12 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 114 of 279 (793316)
10-25-2016 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Tangle
10-25-2016 10:45 AM


Re: Clades
Tangle writes:
This is where it gets messy, Neanderthals are now - along with at least 4 other human forms mostly classed as sub-species of Homo sapiens. They can't be species as they interbred.
Since speciation is not a binary event we can expect limited interbreeding during speciation for many populations. Whether we decide to call them separate species or subspecies does nothing to change the reality. The map is not the territory, as the old saying goes. What we do have is genetically distinct populations that did occasionally interbreed. What produced genetically distinct populations was a lack of free interbreeding between the populations, also known as speciation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Tangle, posted 10-25-2016 10:45 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Tangle, posted 10-25-2016 4:05 PM Taq has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 115 of 279 (793320)
10-25-2016 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Taq
10-25-2016 3:16 PM


Re: Clades
Taq writes:
What we do have is genetically distinct populations that did occasionally interbreed.
I wonder how distinct?
"Neanderthal genetic differences to humans must therefore be interpreted within the context of human diversity."
Neanderthal genome project - Wikipedia
Our DNA is >99% the same as neanderthal but then again so are chimps....

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 10-25-2016 3:16 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 10-25-2016 4:53 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 116 of 279 (793321)
10-25-2016 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tangle
10-25-2016 2:12 PM


Re: Clades
It makes you wonder whether all/most species whilst they're in the process of speciation meet up breed, move away, meet again etc etc and either finally separate for good like lions and tigers but can in principal interbreed or one outcompetes the others - as H. sapiens sapiens.
Indeed, when llamas and camels can be bred it shows that genetic reproductive isolation does not always occur as populations diverge over time, and the ability to breed may survive thousands of years while populations spread to opposite sides of the globe.
I remember a study of stickleback minnows done when I was at uni, and it showed that the hornier the male sticklebacks were, the more likely they were to attempt breeding with things that looked less and less like female stickleback minnows, ultimately trying to mate with a twig. This could be part of how biology encourages mating.
When we look at the fossil record for Pelycodus we see some arbitrary species designations (linear speciation) and one speciation event dividing the breeding population into two separate populations.
The area between depths 1200 and 1400 could be a braided interaction period, where packs would divide, meet up, divide again, depending on ecological changes (droughts, floods, normal weather, etc)
Were they fully reproductively isolated when they did finally divide for good? Or did they just move into different habitates and never met up again?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 110 by Tangle, posted 10-25-2016 2:12 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 117 of 279 (793322)
10-25-2016 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Tangle
10-25-2016 4:05 PM


Re: Clades
Tangle writes:
I wonder how distinct?
"Neanderthal genetic differences to humans must therefore be interpreted within the context of human diversity."
The question I often ask in return is how do they know that 5% of the modern human genome is made up of Neanderthal DNA? How do they tell the difference between Neanderthal DNA and modern human DNA? The answer is pretty simple. It's different.
Not only is it different now, it was different then. I can't seem to find it now, but if memory serves they found an ancient (25,000 years old?) modern human fossil and were able to extract mitochondrial DNA. The mtDNA from the ancient modern human closely matched that of living modern humans. Neanderthal mtDNA does not.
Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA
green is modern human v. modern human, red is modern human v. Neanderthal, blue is modern human v. chimp
[these are values for living modern humans and Neanderthals]
I think it is also worth mentioning that these Neanderthals were identified by morphology. If this were just a case of a diverse modern human population, then why the correlation between the very different mtDNA and the very different morphology? The best answer, IMHO, is that they were separate species.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Tangle, posted 10-25-2016 4:05 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Pressie, posted 10-26-2016 6:04 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 119 by Tangle, posted 10-26-2016 6:19 AM Taq has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 118 of 279 (793337)
10-26-2016 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taq
10-25-2016 4:53 PM


Re: Clades
Taq writes:
The question I often ask in return is how do they know that 5% of the modern human genome is made up of Neanderthal DNA?...
Great explanation. I'd like to add that not all humans have Neanderthal DNA. Remains of Neanderthal genomes are found in Europeans and East Asians for example, but people of Sub-Sahara African ancestry don't have those genes.
Scientists Identify Neanderthal Genes in Modern Human DNA | Anthropology | Sci-News.com
First part:
In two new studies, genetic researchers have shown that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome survives in modern humans of non-African ancestry and identified exactly which areas of the human genome retain segments of Neanderthal DNA.
So, they know exactly where to look for remains of the Neanderthal genome in humans.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 10-25-2016 4:53 PM Taq has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 119 of 279 (793338)
10-26-2016 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taq
10-25-2016 4:53 PM


Re: Clades
Taq writes:
The best answer, IMHO, is that they were separate species.
But at that level, the term 'species' doesn't really mean much. A great dane and a shitzu could reasonably be called morphologically different species and I doubt they could breed naturally...... but we have them as the same species.
Sapiens and Neanderthal's lived together and sucessfully mated - for thousands of years. It looks like Neadethals could speak - they certainly used tools, drew art, had clothing and ornaments. I suspect if they were living with us now, we'd call them human - in the general usage of that word and science might not even classify them as a subspecies. But who knows, it's all pretty interesting though.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 10-25-2016 4:53 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 10-26-2016 10:46 AM Tangle has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 120 of 279 (793350)
10-26-2016 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Tangle
10-26-2016 6:19 AM


Re: Clades
Tangle writes:
But at that level, the term 'species' doesn't really mean much.
Of course it still means something. It means that limited interbreeding is producing statistically significant genetic divergence which can be objectively measured.
A great dane and a shitzu could reasonably be called morphologically different species and I doubt they could breed naturally...... but we have them as the same species.
Maybe we shouldn't treat them as separate species.
Sapiens and Neanderthal's lived together and sucessfully mated - for thousands of years. It looks like Neadethals could speak - they certainly used tools, drew art, had clothing and ornaments. I suspect if they were living with us now, we'd call them human - in the general usage of that word and science might not even classify them as a subspecies. But who knows, it's all pretty interesting though.
1. If there was free interbreeding then they would fall into the range of variation for modern humans. They don't.
2. They were recognized as not being anatomically modern humans when we first found them. Time isn't going to change that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Tangle, posted 10-26-2016 6:19 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 10-26-2016 11:17 AM Taq has replied
 Message 127 by caffeine, posted 10-27-2016 5:44 PM Taq 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