|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Sep 6, 2006, 3:33 PM
Post #1 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
I was in the backyard late yesterday afternoon when I came across a most beautiful and interesting creature perched on a bush:
http://images.enature.com/...lies_l/BU0655_1l.jpg
It's a Shaus Swallowtail (Papilio aristodemus ponceanus). I'd never seen a butterfly like this before. I was fascinated and was inspired right then and there to start a collection. You know, like one of those framed pieces with the scientific classification written neatly below each perfectly preserved specimen. I got a wide mouthed jar and a net and bagged it without any problem and to keep it from fluttering and tearing itself up in the confined space I dropped in a laquer thinner soaked cotton ball. It was dead in minutes.
Here's the problem: I just looked it up on the Internet and came to find out that it's on the freakin' endangered species list. Bummer. It made me sick to my stomach. I'm generally very conscientious when it comes to conservation issues.
The creature is usually limited to the Upper Keys. I'm thinking Ernesto must've blown her up towards us here (95 miles north of Miami)! Poor thing...to survive the hurricane only to be done in by my enthusiasm and ignorance. Ah well, she'll still look good prettily framed on my wall.
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Sep 6, 2006, 3:44 PM
Post #2 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
Are you a lepidopterist?
Shit happens, let it go.
Now, were you to tell me that you ate Chilean sea bass on the weekend, I'd have a problem with that. (Because that would mean less for me.)
|
|
|
|
|
macherry
Sep 6, 2006, 3:49 PM
Post #3 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
i've never understood the need to 'bag and tag' wildlife to appreciate it.
take a photo next time ptc and frame it
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 6, 2006, 3:50 PM
Post #4 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Yeah that would make me feel like shit too. But I do hope this nips your animal collection urge in the bud. I think its out of place in today's world.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Sep 6, 2006, 4:03 PM
Post #5 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: Are you a lepidopterist?
In reply to: Now, were you to tell me that you ate Chilean sea bass on the weekend, I'd have a problem with that. (Because that would mean less for me.) |
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Sep 6, 2006, 4:18 PM
Post #6 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
Murderer....................
|
|
|
|
|
tattooed_climber
Sep 6, 2006, 4:24 PM
Post #7 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 4838
|
In reply to: i've never understood the need to 'bag and tag' wildlife to appreciate it. take a photo next time ptc and frame it
word
hunting for food is one thing, for sport or collection is fucking reTARDed
"NOTHING SAYS I LOVE NATURE MORE THAN KILLING IT"
i'm sure your god will forgive you
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Sep 6, 2006, 4:24 PM
Post #8 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: I was in the backyard late yesterday afternoon when I came across a most beautiful and interesting creature perched on a bush: http://images.enature.com/...lies_l/BU0655_1l.jpg It's a Shaus Swallowtail (Papilio aristodemus ponceanus). I'd never seen a butterfly like this before. I was fascinated and was inspired right then and there to start a collection. You know, like one of those framed pieces with the scientific classification written neatly below each perfectly preserved specimen. I got a wide mouthed jar and a net and bagged it without any problem and to keep it from fluttering and tearing itself up in the confined space I dropped in a laquer thinner soaked cotton ball. It was dead in minutes. Here's the problem: I just looked it up on the Internet and came to find out that it's on the freakin' endangered species list. Bummer. It made me sick to my stomach. I'm generally very conscientious when it comes to conservation issues. The creature is usually limited to the Upper Keys. I'm thinking Ernesto must've blown her up towards us here (95 miles north of Miami)! Poor thing...to survive the hurricane only to be done in by my enthusiasm and ignorance. Ah well, she'll still look good prettily framed on my wall.
So not only have you selfishly destroyed something of beauty that your God put on this planet (not for your personal amusement and joy by the way), you have admitted on a world wide forum to violating the Endangered Species Act. The way I read it (Section 11), you owe Uncle Sam $500. Way to go, ass.
http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/esaall.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
taualum23
Sep 6, 2006, 4:44 PM
Post #9 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 2370
|
Ah,
Pinky, my first visit in months, and I see you've chosen a new target. Good call. It will be easier to eliminate butterflies than gays.
Hope all is well with the rest of you,
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
zozo
Sep 6, 2006, 4:49 PM
Post #10 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 3431
|
I have a dream.....
It goes like this.....
An alien species makes it's way to earth. Florida to be exact, and see's an interesting specimen of a over-abundant form of life walking down the street, PTC to be exact.
The aliens decide to start a collection so they pick him him up and drop him in a vat of varnish. He's gone in minuets.
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Sep 6, 2006, 5:05 PM
Post #11 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
as a child, I once played "batter up!" with a canoe paddle, and a hapless green crab. another time, I threw a toad up in the air as high as I could, just to see what kind of noise it would make when it landed...I still cringe and feel remorse at the memory. makes no difference though...
...I'LL SEE YOU IN HELL, PINKY :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Sep 6, 2006, 5:14 PM
Post #13 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
I think Jeffery Dahmer started out this way....
love always
MaD 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
devils_advocate
Sep 6, 2006, 6:08 PM
Post #14 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1823
|
In reply to: ...and to keep it from fluttering and tearing itself up in the confined space I dropped in a laquer thinner soaked cotton ball. It was dead in minutes. ... I'm generally very conscientious when it comes to conservation issues.
So do you have some sort of formula you use to decide when you should be conscientious of life and when you should kill something so that you may keep it as a trophy?
If you're still having trouble getting over this, just reassure yourself that it was a gay butterfly and deserved to die.
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Sep 6, 2006, 6:48 PM
Post #16 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
In reply to: ...and the Luna (which is technically a moth)
So is the viceroy, which, ahem, evolved to mimic the Monarch.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Sep 6, 2006, 9:02 PM
Post #17 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
Well, you certainly seem to know your lepidopterology. Tell me, are there other species of moths that have, ahem, developed mimicry through pre-existing genetic variables? I seem to remember something about light/dark moths and tree bark.
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Sep 6, 2006, 9:07 PM
Post #18 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
Nope, never really studied mimicry.
I do know, however, that the scales from the wings of hundreds of moths (research) can cause major problems if they get in your lungs.
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Sep 6, 2006, 9:20 PM
Post #19 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
shakylegs wrote:
In reply to: Nope, never really studied mimicry. I do know, however, that the scales from the wings of hundreds of moths (research) can cause major problems if they get in your lungs.
...smokin moth wings is just wrong....
|
|
|
|
|
bear829
Sep 6, 2006, 9:23 PM
Post #20 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1407
|
In reply to: shakylegs wrote: In reply to: Nope, never really studied mimicry. I do know, however, that the scales from the wings of hundreds of moths (research) can cause major problems if they get in your lungs. ...smokin moth wings is just wrong....
But its just so cool to smoke moth wings. Its like doing Toad, man, you just can't stop. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Sep 6, 2006, 9:33 PM
Post #21 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
honestly though ...your title envokes the image of the older brother in "Weird Science" when he gets turned into a pile of shit....
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Sep 6, 2006, 9:48 PM
Post #22 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: honestly though ...your title envokes the image of the older brother in "Weird Science" when he gets turned into a pile of s---....
"Wyatt, I'm sorry for being such a ... shit to you all these years."
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Sep 6, 2006, 10:30 PM
Post #23 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
In reply to: Well, you certainly seem to know your lepidopterology. Tell me, are there other species of moths that have, ahem, developed mimicry through pre-existing genetic variables? I seem to remember something about light/dark moths and tree bark.
i'm sorry, what was it you called the process by which an organism is able to be physically dissimilar to its progentors though the range of genetic variation? was that descent by modification?
you are thinking of the peppered moth. the moth comes in two main phenotypes [physically/visually distinguishable types, and different from genotype because phenotypes can hide reccessive genes in "carriers"]: white with dark speckles and predominantly grey. prior to the industrial revolution, the predominant phenotype was white with speckles. the moths' day resting place is in forests, which had lighter barked trees before pollution became a serious issue. then the industrial revolution happened, and the trees themselves darkened. light moths stand out more against darker trees. if you stand out more, you are likely to get eaten by a bird. if you get eaten by a bird, you are not likely to reproduce. if you do not reproduce, your genes are not passed. on the other hand, if you do *not* get eaten by a bird, and you do reproduce, your genes are passed. so even if your genes were rarer in previos generations, if moths with genes like you get eaten less, you guys will have more moths in the next generation, and in that generation the allelic frequencies will change.
when the clean air laws started being inacted, the trees lightened again. the white with speckles phenotype is once again more common.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Sep 6, 2006, 10:47 PM
Post #24 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
Yes, that's it, that's the example I was thinking about!
Pre-existing genetic variables...a truly amazing design by The Master, eh!?!
Imagine, if you will, at one time there were only two moths, or was it two butterflies with hundreds, if not thousands of these genetic variables contained within their DNA. Now we have literally hundreds of subspecies, each developed for its own unique environment and I have to come along and kill one of the more rare ones. Stupid land developers... stupid hurricane winds...stupid collection impulse.
|
|
|
|
|
jacobg
Sep 7, 2006, 12:36 AM
Post #25 of 57
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 103
|
sux for the butterfly... atleast you got it though! it'll be good to sac chicks, just show it to them and tell them you killed an endangered butterfly.. they will be all over you in minutes
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Sep 7, 2006, 2:53 AM
Post #26 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
It puts the lotion on it's skin...
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Sep 7, 2006, 4:30 AM
Post #27 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
...or else it gets the hose again.
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Sep 7, 2006, 11:15 AM
Post #28 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
In reply to: Yes, that's it, that's the example I was thinking about! Pre-existing genetic variables...a truly amazing design by The Master, eh!?!
*groan*
In reply to: Stupid land developers... stupid hurricane winds...stupid collection impulse.
here, let me help..
Stupid Pinky.
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Sep 7, 2006, 3:18 PM
Post #29 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
pinks: if your master designed the system, why do you have such a hard time calling it evolution?
word just means change.
-cla
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Sep 7, 2006, 3:35 PM
Post #30 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: pinks: if your master designed the system, why do you have such a hard time calling it evolution? word just means change. -cla |
|
|
|
|
clausti
Sep 7, 2006, 5:03 PM
Post #31 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
In reply to: In reply to: pinks: if your master designed the system, why do you have such a hard time calling it evolution? word just means change. -cla Because I don't want to confuse it with Darwin's atheistic philosophy.
are you familiar with the difference between a scientific theory concerning a mechanism for an observed event and a philosphy?
i do beleive a pope and some other fairly pious ppl have said that they're not in conflict.
if you beleive in an omnipresent, atemporal, omnicient, omnipotent god, how can you think that it is past him to have orchestrated the entire process de novo? what reason would he have for a 6 day puppet show?
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Sep 7, 2006, 5:12 PM
Post #32 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
In reply to: In reply to: pinks: if your master designed the system, why do you have such a hard time calling it evolution? word just means change. -cla Because I don't want to confuse it with Darwin's atheistic philosophy.
Nowhere throughout The Origin Of Species does Darwin make the asserion that the process of natural selection is essentially godless. Your mistake is in your literalism, adn implied belief that everythingt snapped into being at ONCE!.
as opposed to a system that a god might have set into motion, and let run.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Sep 7, 2006, 5:20 PM
Post #33 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: pinks: if your master designed the system, why do you have such a hard time calling it evolution? word just means change. -cla Because I don't want to confuse it with Darwin's atheistic philosophy. are you familiar with the difference between a scientific theory concerning a mechanism for an observed event and a philosphy?
In reply to: i do beleive a pope and some other fairly pious ppl have said that they're not in conflict. |
|
|
|
|
clausti
Sep 7, 2006, 5:25 PM
Post #34 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: pinks: if your master designed the system, why do you have such a hard time calling it evolution? word just means change. -cla Because I don't want to confuse it with Darwin's atheistic philosophy. are you familiar with the difference between a scientific theory concerning a mechanism for an observed event and a philosphy? Of course. The Darwinian theory of evolution lacks the "observed event" therefore, IMO, it is rendered a philosophy.
lacks the observed event?
just so that we're understanding each other.. what event are you talking about? cause the observed event to which i am referring is the repetitive change in descendents from the original organisms. i. e. peppered moths and eyeless fish.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Sep 7, 2006, 5:39 PM
Post #35 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
When I think of "species", I refer to their ability to continue to reproduce. You're "peppered moths" didn't change from one species to another. They could still reproduce with what was left of their cousins.
The finches that Darwin used as an example of evolution didn't change from one species to another, they could still reproduce with one another whether they had large or small beaks.
The people that survived after the worldwide pandemic was loosed in Stephen King's, The Stand weren't mutants. They simply had an existing genetic variable within their DNA that allowed them to survive. They certainly weren't a different species!
|
|
|
|
|
lockeyaaron
Sep 7, 2006, 6:04 PM
Post #36 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2004
Posts: 649
|
In reply to: The pope is merely a man and quite fallible at that.
You are going to have the Catholics all up in arms over that comment.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Sep 7, 2006, 6:10 PM
Post #37 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
In reply to: When I think of "species", I refer to their ability to continue to reproduce. You're "peppered moths" didn't change from one species to another. They could still reproduce with what was left of their cousins. The finches that Darwin used as an example of evolution didn't change from one species to another, they could still reproduce with one another whether they had large or small beaks. The people that survived after the worldwide pandemic was loosed in Stephen King's, The Stand weren't mutants. They simply had an existing genetic variable within their DNA that allowed them to survive. They certainly weren't a different species!
soooo... back to the previos question... what were you referring to as a lack of observed event? speciation?
and please, can we leave stephen king's "the stand" out of our discussion? fiction is not really useful for scientific examples.
Do you belevie in genetics? the facts that we have deoxyribonucleic acid in a double stranded helix that encodes for protiens?
please answer only the question 1] what event were you referring to? and 2] do you beleive in genetics?
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Sep 7, 2006, 6:15 PM
Post #38 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
What about Dianetics? Anybody believe in that?
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Sep 7, 2006, 6:26 PM
Post #39 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
In reply to: [and please, can we leave stephen king's "the stand" out of our discussion? fiction is not really useful for scientific examples.
to make this worthwhile, Pinky'd have to leave out the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Sep 7, 2006, 6:28 PM
Post #40 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
In reply to: What about Dianetics? Anybody believe in that?
Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Isaac Hayes...
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Sep 7, 2006, 6:32 PM
Post #41 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: In reply to: When I think of "species", I refer to their ability to continue to reproduce. You're "peppered moths" didn't change from one species to another. They could still reproduce with what was left of their cousins. The finches that Darwin used as an example of evolution didn't change from one species to another, they could still reproduce with one another whether they had large or small beaks. The people that survived after the worldwide pandemic was loosed in Stephen King's, The Stand weren't mutants. They simply had an existing genetic variable within their DNA that allowed them to survive. They certainly weren't a different species! soooo... back to the previos question... what were you referring to as a lack of observed event? speciation?
In reply to: and please, can we leave stephen king's "the stand" out of our discussion? fiction is not really useful for scientific examples.
In reply to: Do you belevie in genetics? the facts that we have deoxyribonucleic acid in a double stranded helix that encodes for protiens?
Just don't confuse that with "mutation".
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Sep 7, 2006, 6:56 PM
Post #42 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
In reply to: In reply to: soooo... back to the previos question... what were you referring to as a lack of observed event? speciation? The fact that one species has never been observed '"evolving" into another.
speciation, per say, does not have to be observed in our human time frame for the mechanism of evolution to be correct. a "species" is a group of individuals that breed with each other, but not with other species. for example, lions and tigers are are different species. they do not interbreed with each other. they CAN, but they DONT. a more interesting exampls is wolves and coyotes, also cross-fertile. there is evidence that wolves and coyotes are interbreeding in the wild in the northeast united states. now, if they are interbreeding in the wild on a noticable scale, are they still seperate species? or are they evolving into a new species due to the environmental pressure on both?
In reply to: In reply to: and please, can we leave stephen king's "the stand" out of our discussion? fiction is not really useful for scientific examples. Oh, c'mon...I love that example! It sorta reminds me of the drug resistant strains of bacteria we see everywhere today! Except for, you know, the humans represent the bacteria.
the fact that that it did not occur makes it an ineffective example.
In reply to: In reply to: Do you belevie in genetics? the facts that we have deoxyribonucleic acid in a double stranded helix that encodes for protiens? Sure, learned all about DNA and RNA and the encoding proteins in biology. Pretty impressive design if you ask me...and to have it produce genetic variability the way it does in pure genius! Just don't confuse that with "mutation".
1] when you say "genetic variability" do you mean alternate alleles? or something else? if you are just referring to the presence of alternate alleles in a population, then no genetic variation is being "produced," it is extant.
2] how would you define "mutation"? would you not define it as "a mistake in dna replication," the accepted definition among scientists?
|
|
|
|
|
jpdreamer
Sep 7, 2006, 7:10 PM
Post #43 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 232
|
Single celled organisms (bacteria and the like) reproduce asexually, so without mutation their offspring should be perfect clones of the parent.
However, if you introduce a single bacteria to a petri dish and allow it to multiply, then introduce an antibody, it will sometimes occour that the antibody kills off much of the colony, but some are unaffected.
I submit that this is clearly evidence of a beneficial mutation.
Additionally, even if the genes for a differing phenotype exist within an organism, clearly there's been a mutation somewhere along the line which allows those genes to manifest themselves instead of the ones which manifested in the parents. It's not as though there's conscious control over things like beak shape.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Sep 7, 2006, 7:45 PM
Post #44 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
In reply to: Single celled organisms (bacteria and the like) reproduce asexually, so without mutation their offspring should be perfect clones of the parent.
chromosonally. bacteria tend to carry a non-negligible amount of extra-chromosomal dna in the form of plasmids, which they can exchange. also, cytoplasmic splitting isnt *always* 50/50, and mitochondria and chloroplasts carry their own dna as well.
In reply to: However, if you introduce a single bacteria to a petri dish and allow it to multiply, then introduce an antibody, it will sometimes occour that the antibody kills off much of the colony, but some are unaffected. I submit that this is clearly evidence of a beneficial mutation.
somewhere along the line. not necc in that petri dish.
In reply to: Additionally, even if the genes for a differing phenotype exist within an organism,
if genes for a phenotype not exhibited by that organism exsist within that organism, its a heterozygote and carries two different alleles, ok i'm following you so far....
In reply to: clearly there's been a mutation somewhere along the line which allows those genes
grammar police first: unspecified antecedent for the pronoun "those" in "those genes." do you mean the genes that account for the observed phenotype? or the reccessive genes?
In reply to: to manifest themselves instead of the ones which manifested in the parents.
to determine which traits should manifest themselves in absence of mutation you'd have to specify how many alleles at how many loci on how many genes you were talking about but right now i dunno what you're saying.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Sep 7, 2006, 9:38 PM
Post #45 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: When I think of "species", I refer to their ability to continue to reproduce. You're "peppered moths" didn't change from one species to another. They could still reproduce with what was left of their cousins. The finches that Darwin used as an example of evolution didn't change from one species to another, they could still reproduce with one another whether they had large or small beaks. The people that survived after the worldwide pandemic was loosed in Stephen King's, The Stand weren't mutants. They simply had an existing genetic variable within their DNA that allowed them to survive. They certainly weren't a different species! soooo... back to the previos question... what were you referring to as a lack of observed event? speciation? The fact that one species has never been observed '"evolving" into another. In reply to: and please, can we leave stephen king's "the stand" out of our discussion? fiction is not really useful for scientific examples. Oh, c'mon...I love that example! It sorta reminds me of the drug resistant strains of bacteria we see everywhere today! Except for, you know, the humans represent the bacteria. In reply to: Do you belevie in genetics? the facts that we have deoxyribonucleic acid in a double stranded helix that encodes for protiens? Sure, learned all about DNA and RNA and the encoding proteins in biology. Pretty impressive design if you ask me...and to have it produce genetic variability the way it does in pure genius! Just don't confuse that with "mutation".
Are these enough examples of definitive speciation for you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Sep 7, 2006, 10:11 PM
Post #47 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Please don't copy paste large amounts of text. We allow linking and a short synopsis of the text or a very short copy paste of some of the relevant points to bolster your argument but please do not copy paste large amounts of text.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Sep 7, 2006, 10:18 PM
Post #48 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: Please don't copy paste large amounts of text. We allow linking and a short synopsis of the text or a very short copy paste of some of the relevant points to bolster your argument but please do not copy paste large amounts of text.
That was the short version! :wink:
Fixed, though.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Sep 7, 2006, 10:33 PM
Post #49 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: In reply to: Please don't copy paste large amounts of text. We allow linking and a short synopsis of the text or a very short copy paste of some of the relevant points to bolster your argument but please do not copy paste large amounts of text. That was the short version! :wink: Fixed, though.
Aha, thanks mate.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Sep 7, 2006, 10:46 PM
Post #50 of 57
(1367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
In reply to: STOP STARING AT ME!!!!! AAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
hehe, you make me giggle.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Sep 7, 2006, 10:49 PM
Post #51 of 57
(1029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
Sorry dude, she's actually staring at me. Now move along.
|
|
|
|
|
jpdreamer
Sep 7, 2006, 11:26 PM
Post #52 of 57
(1029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 232
|
In reply to: grammar police first: unspecified antecedent for the pronoun "those" in "those genes." do you mean the genes that account for the observed phenotype? or the reccessive genes?
With "those genes" I meant the genes which allow some of the offspring to resist the effects of an antibacterial agent. Even if they existed in the parent organism first introduced to the petri dish, it seems clear that there's been a change (ie, a mutation) in some of the offspring which causes the genes which allow resistance to the antibacterial agent to manifest themselves.
The idea I was trying to put forward was that the notion that all genes for useful changes to an organism already exist within it, and thus there is no such thing as beneficial mutation, is an incomplete argument. Those genes must come to manifest themselves in some way, and it certainly isn't something which is consciously controlled by the organism. This gap seems especially important in the realm of single celled organisms, where the explaination of two parents having a recessive gene which would then manifist in the offspring is invalid.
If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that in the case of asexual reproduction, that the genes may not be split 50/50, and this could thus account for a gene's manifesting it's self in one offspring and not in the other?
Alright, I'll concede this as a possibility. However, in the abscence of mutation, sucessive iterations of imperfect division would ultimately lead to a loss of individual genetic diversity. Consider if there were only 3 genes in a bacteria:
A B C which then imperfectly divides to form two offspring:
A A B and B C C. In the abscence of mutation, there is no way that the offspring of the first organism could ever recover the genetic diversity contained in C and the second could never recover genetic diversity contained in A.
I would suggest that accounting for this loss of individual genetic diversity by allowing for sequences of base pairs to be interchanged within genes or allowing for imperfect splitting to modify genes themselves is mutation.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Sep 7, 2006, 11:50 PM
Post #53 of 57
(1029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
jpdreamer: in lieu of writing the chapter of a micro/genetics book up here, PM me if you actually give a crap. short version, the genotype you described for a replicating bacteria would almost certainly be lethal for reasons of obligate chromosome breakage to get the type you described.
but say you do have a bunch of bacteria.... happliy growing.
you take a sample of those bacteria, and you put them in an environment that has ampicillin in it. the ones that are resistant will grow, and if you progote only those lines, you will have all resistent bacteria. descent through modification.
if you have a single bacterium that you knew was not resistent to amp [because his clone-brothers died of it], and you grow him on a plate. you allow him to accumulate for, say.... 100 generations. which for an ecoli accounts for roughly 33 hours, or start your culture in the morning and go get it the next afternoon.
if you then added amp to you bacteria's environment, and *some of the progeny lived* then you have mutation.
descent by modification.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Sep 8, 2006, 1:29 AM
Post #54 of 57
(1029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
And on topic too.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Sep 8, 2006, 3:49 AM
Post #55 of 57
(1029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
In reply to: And on topic too.
fine fine fine. E. coli. happy?
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Sep 8, 2006, 4:31 AM
Post #56 of 57
(1029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: In reply to: And on topic too. fine fine fine. E. coli. happy?
Heh, I was referring to the topic "I feel like a turd" and your reference to ecoli being on topic. I was clueless that you'd spelt it wrong. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
|
