Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9057 total)
386 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, nwr, Tanypteryx (4 members, 382 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,940 Year: 1,052/6,534 Month: 1,052/682 Week: 105/182 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Common Ancestor?
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 4028 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 41 of 341 (583444)
09-27-2010 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jon
09-23-2010 8:57 PM


Re: Definitions & Feel-good Science
quote:
Generally, the notion is that breeding individuals belong to the same species.

That is one possible definition of species, but not comprehensive, and maybe not even accurate.

I assume you'd agree that Lions and Tigers are separate species, yet Ligers do exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 09-23-2010 8:57 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Jon, posted 09-27-2010 12:05 PM Strongbow has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 09-27-2010 3:18 PM Strongbow has responded

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 4028 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 45 of 341 (583465)
09-27-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by barbara
09-27-2010 2:22 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
It's important to remember that the concept of a "species" is one created by human beings for our own convenience to describe an observed phenomenon. Exactly what constitutes a species is going to be a bit elusive, because as we learn more, we learn that as a concept, it's more descriptive than restrictive. And when it fails to describe the phenomena you are looking to describe, then it must change, or even disappear all together. A species is a bit like pornography in that it may be hard to define precisely, but most people knpow it when they see it. Drawing firm lines between species is anohter thing... and in many ways, not as important as it used to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by barbara, posted 09-27-2010 2:22 PM barbara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Jon, posted 09-27-2010 6:48 PM Strongbow has responded

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 4028 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 51 of 341 (583476)
09-27-2010 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Taq
09-27-2010 3:18 PM


Re: Definitions & Feel-good Science
quote:
The important concept here is gene flow. Whether or not two species can produce fertile offspring is not important. What is important is do they produce fertile offspring when given the chance. What we want to know is if mutations can flow freely from one population to the other. If not, then the populations are diverging.

Of course, this definition only applies to living species who reproduce sexually. This doesn't apply to things such as fossil species or bacteria.

hat is on possible definition of species, but not comprehensive, and maybe not even accurate.

The important concept here is gene flow. Whether or not two species can produce fertile offspring is not important. What is important is do they produce fertile offspring when given the chance. What we want to know is if mutations can flow freely from one population to the other. If not, then the populations are diverging.

Of course, this definition only applies to living species who reproduce sexually. This doesn't apply to things such as fossil species or bacteria.


I agree, of course. In fact, I REALLY agree. But the point I was trying to make is that many creationists, or just the scientifically illiterate try to build arguments about precise, legalistic definitions of species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 09-27-2010 3:18 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 4028 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 55 of 341 (583522)
09-27-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Jon
09-27-2010 6:48 PM


Re: SCOTUS Ruling Tactics = Bad Analogies
quote:
Really? Or are you just saying that because some judge dude did and you thought it'd be cool to repeat?


Jeez...a little touchy eh?

I meant only that it's sometimes difficult to draw a bright line between species, because it's more of a descriptive concept than a definitive set of criteria.

In the same way , it's sometimes difficult to draw a bright line between provacative, but legitimate sexually-themed art and porno.

If that's too hard to follow, consider language.... when did Old English become Middle English? When did Middle English become Elizabethan English? When did Elizabethan English morph into Modern English?

The changes are slow, and gradual. I don't think you could define a date where everything before was one thing and everything after another. Species are quite similar in that respect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Jon, posted 09-27-2010 6:48 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Strongbow, posted 09-27-2010 8:26 PM Strongbow has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Jon, posted 09-27-2010 10:51 PM Strongbow has responded

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 4028 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 56 of 341 (583524)
09-27-2010 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Strongbow
09-27-2010 8:24 PM


Re: SCOTUS Ruling Tactics = Bad Analogies
Common ERV's an excellent way to determine common ancestors, if DNA is available. They allow very detailed evolutionary relationships to be determined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Strongbow, posted 09-27-2010 8:24 PM Strongbow has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Ken Fabos, posted 09-27-2010 10:02 PM Strongbow has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2010 4:27 AM Strongbow has not yet responded

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 4028 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 65 of 341 (583602)
09-28-2010 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Jon
09-27-2010 10:51 PM


Re: SCOTUS Ruling Tactics = Bad Analogies
quote:
Easy. I agree with your statements. I just found your explanation funny.

Roger that... I misinterpreted your reply and misunderstood your postion. My apologies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Jon, posted 09-27-2010 10:51 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 4028 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 66 of 341 (583603)
09-28-2010 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
09-28-2010 4:22 AM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
quote:
There existed a common ancestor of all humans and chimps/bonobos who had two children, one of whom was the common ancestor of all living humans but no chimps/bonobos, and the other of whom was the common ancestor of all living chimps/bonobos but no humans.

OK.... I'm a bit confused.... how do we know that? Why couldn't humans have descended from an individual from one part of the population, and chimps/bonobos descended from an individual in another part of the population?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2010 4:22 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 4028 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 170 of 341 (587342)
10-18-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Dr Jack
10-16-2010 5:00 PM


Re: Information rides again
Mr Jack writes:

I think it's silly to say that a gene does not contain the information for coding a protein. Equally it's silly to think that kind of information is quantifiable.
The only reason I can see for denying that the section of DNA that codes for a protein contains the information for that protein is the nonsense and equivocation we've had to put up with from Creo's regarding the information issue. I think it is a very sad day for science when we retreat for using perfectly sensible terminology for that reason.

I think it's silly to say that a gene does not contain the information for coding a protein. Equally it's silly to think that kind of information is quantifiable.
The only reason I can see for denying that the section of DNA that codes for a protein contains the information for that protein is the nonsense and equivocation we've had to put up with from Creo's regarding the information issue. I think it is a very sad day for science when we retreat for using perfectly sensible terminology for that reason.

I agree.. what we need to get across is that the infromation in DNA is intrinsic to the chemistry of the molecule itself, rather than abstract. With computer code, we can map the symbols to functions of a processor in what fashion we want. As long as the programmer and the processor designer are using the same assumptions, the abstract relationship itself doesn't matter. With DNA, and chemsitry in general, the meaning is instrinsic to the molecule. If Gene A codes fro Proteins W and X, it cannot be redefined as coding for Protiens Y and Z. The chemsitry just doesn't work.

Abstract information is the prduct of an intelligent agent. Intrinsic information might be, or might not.

Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Dr Jack, posted 10-16-2010 5:00 PM Dr Jack 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 © 2022