Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
193 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 189 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,429 Year: 1,177/23,288 Month: 1,177/1,851 Week: 301/320 Day: 1/72 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 69 of 126 (538786)
12-10-2009 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peg
12-10-2009 5:39 AM


Re: what kids are taught
thier DNA is not identicle, so how are they related?

Your DNA is not identical to that of your parents, does that mean you aren't related? I'm not talking about the fact that you only inherited ~1/2 of your genetic complement from each parent but about the fact that you are likely to have ~100 or more novel genetic mutations that neither of your parents had.

We can use genetic to determine degrees of relatedness in humans, what makes you think the exact same approach becomes impossible when we look at other animals?


TTFN,

WK

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 5:39 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:55 AM Wounded King has responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 75 of 126 (538794)
12-10-2009 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Peg
12-10-2009 6:13 AM


Sounds like Cichlids
Fair enough i can go along with that. But then he showed an example of a particular african fish where the male comes in a huge variety of colours. (not sure of the name of the fish)

Then he goes and spoils it all by calling every different coloured male a 'new species' ... "a brilliant example of evolution at work"

seriously, what is a species these days??? And why would he call the different colored males a new species???

Sounds like it might be Cichlids they are a pretty popular model organism for studying speciation. In which case the various different coloured males may well have been distinct species since there can be dozens of cichlid species in just one lake.

The reason they are different species is because the different populations from which the different coloured males come tend not to interbreed with the other populations, even if they live in the same area. This is pre-mating reproductive isolation and can be considered either sufficient to categorise different species or at least good evidence for incipient speciation. in most cases there are many other differences between the different cichlid populations apart from colour, the cichlids show a wide range of different morphologies (see this link).


TTFN,

WK

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:13 AM Peg has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 80 of 126 (538799)
12-10-2009 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Peg
12-10-2009 6:55 AM


Relatedness
the fact that all creatures have dna does not mean they are related.

That wasn't what I said. Is asked why if similarities in genetics are sufficient to determine relatedness in humans then why not between animals and humans? There could quite easily be all sorts of organisms which used DNA but had a totally different set of genes and proteins than any other, but that isn't what we find, what we find is that organisms seem to share very large complements of genes and that a lot of genetic variation is based upon multiple variants of genes common to many organisms. For example the genetic complements of human and chimpanzee's are much more similar to each other than either is to a mouse. It isn't simply the fact that DNA is involved, it is the specific sequences of DNA.

Isnt it sterility that determines what species are related and what are not?

No it isn't, sterility doesn't really say anything about relatedness at all. One definition of distinct species is that when they mate they do not produce fertile offspring, this is post-mating reproductive isolation. We might assume that more closely related species are less likely to produce non-viable or sterile hybrids, but this need not be the case since only two or three mutations may be sufficient to cause offspring to be non-viable.

And isnt it true that breeding experiments have shown that appearance and similarity in genes (ie ape and man) is no basis to determine who is related?

No, I don't think it is true, perhaps if you could be a bit more specific about what breeding experiments you mean I could give you a clearer answer. Offhand I say that almost all comparative genetics suggests you are completely wrong and in fact genetic similarity is probably the very best way to determine relatedness.


TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:55 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Peg, posted 12-12-2009 6:13 PM Wounded King has responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 89 of 126 (539071)
12-12-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Peg
12-12-2009 6:13 PM


Re: Relatedness
im not using the right word here and im not sure what you call it...im talking about 'sterility' in the sense that a cat and dog cannot produce offspring. I thought it was called sterility but obviously any individual can be sterile.

Even if you use more accurate terminology such as 'interfertility', the reproductive compatibility of two organisms to produce viable fertile offspring. It doesn't change the fact that interfertility is not a measure of relatedness, only of specific genetic compatibility. In some cases genetic incompatibility can be established by very few mutations, which is why it isn't a good measure of relatedness.

The essential reason why a cat and a dog can't successfully interbreed and why 2 genetically incompatible people cant interbreed is the same, genetic incompatibility, in the case of the cat and dog the incompatibility is considerably wider spread because they have had time to evolve in different directions since they last had common ancestors within one breeding population. Over this time their chromosomal organisation may have changed significantly, including the number of chromosomes, the arrangement of genes on the chromosomes and the specific genes themselves. All of these differences may contribute to the genetic incompatibility.

the breeding experiments im talking about are the ones where scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants to try and develop new forms of life.

Oh, you mean fictional ones made up by creationists, thanks for clearing that up. None of the things Bergman refers to were experiments with the intention of developing 'new forms of life'.

But man and ape are said to be related and yet they cannot produce offspring...not even hybrids.... so how are they related?

Just blindly repeating the same question doesn't help, They are genetically related, you just agreed genetics can tell us about relatedness, but now you are taking it back and saying it can't because ... well no reason really, except that you don't like evolution. I have explained twice now that producing offspring is not the measure of relatedness, do you get it yet? No matter how often you try to claim it is you will never be right.

If we cant do it deliberately, what makes you think nature can do it accidently?

Apart from creationist lies what make you think people have been trying to do it deliberately? Plus nature has had a lot longer and a lot more resources.

But if your version of evolution includes the idea that species can develop so much change that they become a new species, then i dont believe that there is any evidence for that.

Thats because you think becoming a new species means a cat will become a dog because you're understanding of evolution is based on creationist propaganda rather than, say, actual evolutionary theory.

this is in perfect harmony with what breeding projects have found with regard to species. Species reproduce according their parents.

That is what evolution says as well, it just also says that the offspring can differ slightly from their parents which is indeed what we see.


TTFN,

WK

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Peg, posted 12-12-2009 6:13 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Peg, posted 12-12-2009 8:23 PM Wounded King has responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 97 of 126 (539096)
12-13-2009 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Peg
12-12-2009 8:23 PM


Re: Relatedness
Thank god you creationists are here to tell evolutionary biologists what evolution is all about. Sadly you all think that it is only about what Darwin wrote and tend to ignore the subsequent 150 years of research.

We do also see both of those things that were in your quote, and you going "LA, LA, LA!" with your fingers in your ears doesn't change that. Just because you have an insane creationist understanding of the concept of what 'becomes a new species' actually means doesn't mean that what it actually means in evolutionary terms, two supopulations from an originally interbreeding population becoming reprodcutively isolated (post-mating for a strong biological species concept), doesn't happen.

with all the billions of people who have ever lived on this earth, we still all look the same. We have not changed our physical form, we still have 1 head on our sholders and 2 legs beneath our torso and 2 arms with 10 fingers on each hand.

So all the people with polydactyly and syndactyly simply don't exist? Plus way to once again present the idiotic creationist strawman version of what evolution should look like?


TTFN,

WK

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Peg, posted 12-12-2009 8:23 PM Peg has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020