Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
724 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, Diomedes, GDR, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo, Tangle, xongsmith (11 members, 713 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,833 Year: 21,869/19,786 Month: 432/1,834 Week: 432/315 Day: 28/82 Hour: 5/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Species
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 220 of 450 (614076)
05-01-2011 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Huntard
08-16-2010 8:45 AM


Re: Pushing back the boundaries of ignorance.
Big_Al35 writes:

How can the variable nature of the environment affect some parts of the DNA but not the important information storing parts which spell out that we should have arms, legs, torso, head etc.


Huntard writes:

It does effect that.

So why have I just seen a program on television which clearly shows that DNA is coded such that it specifies which sequences of DNA code can change randomly and which areas should not be changed randomly?

Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Huntard, posted 08-16-2010 8:45 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Coragyps, posted 05-01-2011 12:44 PM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 224 by Wounded King, posted 05-01-2011 2:08 PM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 222 of 450 (614079)
05-01-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Coragyps
05-01-2011 12:44 PM


Re: Pushing back the boundaries of ignorance.
I'm betting it had something to do with the "power" switch on your television being at "on."

You're right, the power switch was in the "on" position at the time. But that doesn't explain the contents of the program that I witnessed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Coragyps, posted 05-01-2011 12:44 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by fearandloathing, posted 05-01-2011 1:29 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 225 of 450 (614083)
05-01-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Wounded King
05-01-2011 2:08 PM


Re: Pushing back the boundaries of ignorance.
Given your pevious showing on this thread the answer is probably because you misunderstood what the program was clearly saying.

And given your previous responses to my comments and that you have already reached the conclusion that I have "misunderstood", I guess there's not much point in me telling you the name of the program. You will no doubt just reiterate this point ad infinitum.

Anyway, here's a clue. It's available to you all on bbc iPlayer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Wounded King, posted 05-01-2011 2:08 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by fearandloathing, posted 05-01-2011 3:04 PM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 227 of 450 (614085)
05-01-2011 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by fearandloathing
05-01-2011 3:04 PM


Re: Pushing back the boundaries of ignorance.
Was it on Dr. Who....it was wasn't it

What are the options? Eastenders, Dr Who, Top Gear....to name but three.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by fearandloathing, posted 05-01-2011 3:04 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Admin, posted 05-01-2011 4:19 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 229 by Wounded King, posted 05-01-2011 5:55 PM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 230 of 450 (614121)
05-02-2011 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Wounded King
05-01-2011 5:55 PM


Re: Could you be more specific?
Wounded King writes:

What it is is the result of natural selection removing mutations which are deleterious. If a specific nucleotide sequence is vital to the development, survival or reproductive success of the organism then it will tend to be highly conserved.

Both you and Huntard have already given examples of three legged individuals which I would describe as highly deleterious. You didn't make the distinction before between highly conserved sequences within the genome and those which are not highly conserved. The sequence of DNA which specifies having two legs falls within those precisely defined and highly maintained segments of DNA that we are talking about.

I believe that you and your side kick Huntard are therefore to blame for this going off-topic. You presented your arguments as if there was no distinction between highly mutated areas and those that are more precisely maintained. Ofcourse you're back peddaling now.

I don't dispute that any area of the genome is vulnerable to being perturbed, but clearly we both agree that some areas are highly maintained whereas within other seqments of DNA code, non-deleterious mutations occur often, frequently and infact with every offspring.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Wounded King, posted 05-01-2011 5:55 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Admin, posted 05-02-2011 7:46 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 232 by Wounded King, posted 05-02-2011 9:02 AM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 234 of 450 (614331)
05-03-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Wounded King
05-02-2011 9:02 AM


Re: Could you be more specific?
The whole reason we got onto the three legged issue was because you were denying the role of environmental factors in affecting development. That is why were weren't discussing conserved or non-conserved regions of the genome, because the whole point was that there are extra-genomic factors that can affect an embryo's development.

If I agreed or disagreed about the influence that the environment has on a developing embryo the issue for evolution remains the same. Evolutionary theory works on the principal that we are all related as we all share common DNA. If the example you gave was of the impact of an extra-genomic factor unrelated to genetic mutation then your point is irrelevant to the study of evolution.

I think you are making a false distinction here, the important thing is not the frequency and nature of the mutation but it's subsequent spread through the population.

I think your reasoning here is a non sense. Highly conserved genes have spread throughout the population and therefore would be the genes that identify species more accurately. Those sequences which appear in the randomized segments of the DNA code can in many instances morph in the following offspring. This does not a species make.

There is little reason to think that highly conserved regions are any less susceptible to mutation than non-conserved regions

A highly conserved region is by definition less susceptible to mutation than non-conserved regions.

mutations in more developmentally/functionally important regions will tend to be selected against because of the perturbations they produce. In the most extreme cases this selection will be virtually immediate in the form of embryonic lethal mutations where the organism will never become viable.

If mutation in more important regions tend to be selected against due to the potential of non viable organisms this adds weight to the argument that it should be these sequences of DNA that should be used to identify species and not the more mutated areas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Wounded King, posted 05-02-2011 9:02 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Wounded King, posted 05-03-2011 4:40 PM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 236 of 450 (614344)
05-03-2011 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Wounded King
05-03-2011 4:40 PM


Re: Highly conserved sequences
No. In fact genes that aren't at all conserved across species would be best to uniquely identify a species

You are talking about genes conserved or not conserved across species, whereas I am talking about genes conserved or not conserved through the generations of one species. Note that DNA is very effective in determining paternity and kinship.

No it isn't, it is just that the organisms in which it is mutated are much less likely to survive and reproduce

This is not my understanding of how DNA works. My parents had several children each one with different DNA however small. They did not have several miscarriages to balance out the successful outcomes which would be the logical conclusion of your argument.

If you think you can find a reputable source to support your definition feel free to provide it.

You didn't need much information to identify the program I was referring to and the same follows for the above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Wounded King, posted 05-03-2011 4:40 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Wounded King, posted 05-03-2011 5:58 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 238 by Percy, posted 05-03-2011 7:15 PM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 239 of 450 (614402)
05-04-2011 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Percy
05-03-2011 7:15 PM


Re: Highly conserved sequences
Wounded King writes:

Well I think we have fairly well established that you don't have a particularly solid grasp of how DNA works.

Firstly you gave me an example of a three legged individual whose deformity was due to environmental impact and therefore irrelevant to the study of genetics or evolution and you claim that I don't have a solid grasp?

It would appear that you don't have a solid grasp of reality or the relevant.

Wounded King writes:

They are talking about the conservation of sequences between chickens and humans

You will persist in this game of making utterly irrelevant points in your show of brinksmanship. Who cares about the conservation of sequences between chickens and humans? I could point out that 85% of the genome between mice and humans is the same too. It's utterly irrelevant again. Humans, mice and chickens are all different species which didn't even evolve along the same paths if they evolved at all. It's not about which sequences are the same but about which sequences are different.

Percy writes:

The genes of a species practically define it.

This is a tautology and poor logic. Something that evolutionists seem to thrive on. That's why we are here discussing the title of this forum.

Percy writes:

I think you can safely assume that to a very great extent genes are conserved through the generations of a species

Are you disputing Darwinian natural selection? Sounds like it to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Percy, posted 05-03-2011 7:15 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 05-04-2011 4:53 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 241 by Percy, posted 05-04-2011 8:17 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 242 of 450 (614424)
05-04-2011 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Wounded King
05-04-2011 4:53 AM


Re: Highly conserved sequences
Wounded King writes:

randomisation comes from the environment

Ok I accept that fingerprints and retinas have an environmental influence. This doesn't change the fact that you will persist on highlighting irrelevancies again and again. Fingerprints and retinas do not define species and environmental influences do not define species.

Wounded King writes:

Wasn't that kind of my point? That between species differences rather than commonalities were more appropriate for defining species?

You have a remarkable capacity to highlight the irrelevant, confuse the issue, and make ad hoc comparisons. As I said before who cares about human and chicken similarities. Why a chicken and not an elephant? Commonalities between humans and random creatures is just a diversion from the real issue which you continue to avoid.

You continually refer to conserved areas across species but never refer to conserved areas within one species. I am guessing it's due to Percys subsequent contributions which are just plain flawed.

As I stated before it makes more sense to study one species and highlight the divergences and commonalities there as your starting point.

Percy writes:

I think you're confusing tautologies with definitions.

Percy writes:

The genes of a species practically define it.

Firstly, why are we discussing the definition of species when you, apparently, have it all figured out in your above wisdom. If this was and is the case I think we can close this thread right now.

Secondly, it's still a tautology as you are adding no additional knowledge here. I know it must be hard for you to part with any wisdom or to share in your experience but it would be helpful if you tried.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 05-04-2011 4:53 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 05-04-2011 9:28 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 244 by Wounded King, posted 05-04-2011 10:07 AM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 245 of 450 (614579)
05-05-2011 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Wounded King
05-04-2011 10:07 AM


Re: CAOS theory
Wounded King writes:

Wasn't that kind of my point? That between species differences rather than commonalities were more appropriate for defining species?

The above statement is completely illogical. Let me explain why.

Consider three species, humans, mice and chickens.

Lets say that one individual human has the following genome; ABCDEFGHIJK
Lets say that one individual mouse has ; ABCDEFLMNOP
And one individual chicken has; ABCDPQRST

If we do what you are suggesting and use the differences to define species we get the following result;

human - chicken differences are ; EFGHIJK - PQRST
human - mice differences are ; GHIJK - LMNOP
chicken - mice differences are ; QRST - EFLMNO

You can see how unhelpful the results are and no definition can be reached.

If we consider the commonalities we get ;

human - chicken commonalities are ; ABCD
human - mice commonalities are ; ABCDEF
chicken - mice commonalities are ; ABCDP

Again not helpful.

Now consider two humans, the one above has genome ABCDEFGHIJK and another with ABCDEFGHIVW

The differences are JK - VW and the commonalities are
ABCDEFGHI. If we were to find a third, fourth and fifth human with a matching genome of ABCDEFGHI we might start to think that ABCDEFGHI could be used as a good and reliable definition for a human.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Wounded King, posted 05-04-2011 10:07 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Wounded King, posted 05-05-2011 6:49 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 249 by Percy, posted 05-05-2011 9:21 AM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 247 of 450 (614586)
05-05-2011 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Wounded King
05-05-2011 6:49 AM


Re: CAOS theory
Wounded King writes:

we clearly already have a panel of putative diagnostic characters that could define the 3 species.

Human: GHIJK

Incorrect, as my example already goes on to find a human with
GHIVW.

This is why I have been saying all along that you need to look at both within and between species variation.

Yes you have kept referring to conservation across the species but never conservation within one species see previous posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Wounded King, posted 05-05-2011 6:49 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Wounded King, posted 05-05-2011 9:00 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 251 of 450 (614593)
05-05-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Percy
05-05-2011 9:21 AM


Percy writes:

Each letter corresponds to a gene, right?

No the genome consists of the entire DNA architecture of which genes make less than 3%. Even when comparing known genes, as you have already stated, significant differences will be noted due to the many different alleles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Percy, posted 05-05-2011 9:21 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 05-05-2011 10:21 AM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 253 of 450 (614599)
05-05-2011 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Percy
05-05-2011 10:21 AM


Percy writes:

everything I said in Message 241 about gene sets being unique to species is still accurate. And WK agrees

Thats very interesting given that we share 98% of our entire genome with chimpanzees and yet only 2-3% of the genome consists of genes!

It would be interesting to discover how many genes are different between humans and chimps and what fraction of the entire genome this represents?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 05-05-2011 10:21 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Wounded King, posted 05-05-2011 11:17 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 05-05-2011 9:17 PM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 258 of 450 (614703)
05-06-2011 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Percy
05-05-2011 9:17 PM


Percy writes:

It is the gene sets that are unique. Different species can share many of the same genes, but the complete set of genes are unique for each species.

Let me get this right, 97% of our genome (maybe 98%) consists of apparent junk (no function identified as of yet) and yet 98% of our genome is shared with chimpanzees.

So really the vast bulk of DNA that is shared across the species is junk and in the case of chimpanzees our genes are actually 70% different?

Do biologists deliberately set out to mislead?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 05-05-2011 9:17 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Percy, posted 05-06-2011 6:57 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 262 by Wounded King, posted 05-06-2011 8:36 AM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 264 of 450 (614823)
05-07-2011 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Wounded King
05-06-2011 8:36 AM


WK writes:

Junk DNA is not simply everything that isn't a protein coding gene

Thanks for clearing that up. Your information is most helpful. I don't work in genetics or biology so bear with me as I am discussing this purely as a lay person.

I haven't added references for my figures because I didn't want to get bogged down in an argument about who had the most reliable source or to be quibbling over 1-2% figures. I usually round up or down anyway and my figures are usually based on not one source but an average of several sources.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Wounded King, posted 05-06-2011 8:36 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Wounded King, posted 05-07-2011 4:31 PM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019