|
angry
Sep 7, 2006, 2:53 AM
Post #26 of 57
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 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
(1368 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
In reply to: STOP STARING AT ME!!!!! AAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
hehe, you make me giggle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
