Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Increases in Genetic Information
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 193 (697559)
04-27-2013 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jbozz21
04-27-2013 2:03 PM


removed
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jbozz21, posted 04-27-2013 2:03 PM jbozz21 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 32 of 193 (697560)
04-27-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jbozz21
04-27-2013 2:03 PM


Taq, are you trying to tell me that all life on earth evolved from a potatoe? Last time I checked the current Threory is that all life on earth evolved from a single micro-organism.
No, jbozz21. He is simply trying to tell you that at least one of the arguments in your OP is nonsense.
Last time I checked the current Threory is that all life on earth evolved from a single micro-organism.
And is the theory that such an organism was just like a modern bacteria? Is it necessary to assume that single celled organism cannot evolve either? Because your moral support won't join you out on that limb.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jbozz21, posted 04-27-2013 2:03 PM jbozz21 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jbozz21, posted 04-27-2013 4:21 PM NoNukes has replied

  
CoolBeans
Member (Idle past 3614 days)
Posts: 196
From: Honduras
Joined: 02-11-2013


Message 33 of 193 (697561)
04-27-2013 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jbozz21
04-27-2013 2:03 PM


No, thats not what he is trying to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jbozz21, posted 04-27-2013 2:03 PM jbozz21 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 193 (697562)
04-27-2013 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jbozz21
04-27-2013 2:31 PM


No one will even agree on a simple definition.
What definition of macro-evolution did we disagree with? Isn't it the one you made up for this thread?
So far, other than correcting you on simple factual errors, I've pointed out that your assumption that any evolutionary step (macro or micro) that adds new functionality must also result eliminate inter-fertility is not correct. If you want to define macro-evolution that way, you are not going to get agreement.
If they can have fertile offspring then there is always chance that their populations can recombine and become one single population again thus immobilizing divergent evolution.
Some chance, yes. But the chance can, in some cases, be small enough to ignore. Using your example, lions and tigers do not mate in the wild despite the fact that they are inter-fertile. My guess is that humans and modern non-human apes are not inter-fertile. But even if some non human apes and humans could produce offspring, they do not do so.
Can they have fertile offspring? For example Mules and Horses cannot have fertile offspring. They are different species.
Yes. They are. But as you yourself pointed out, the classification system that we use to label lions and tigers species is not quite so exact.
ABE:
Holy cow dude. You cited a definition that included the statement that species are "usually" not interfertile. What's up with that?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jbozz21, posted 04-27-2013 2:31 PM jbozz21 has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 35 of 193 (697563)
04-27-2013 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by bluegenes
04-27-2013 8:00 AM


Re: Understanding indirect observation
why is there "good reason" to think that they were so designed?
When you consider the fact that single celled organisms don’t have the convenience of mobility that most multi-celled organisms do, then from a design standpoint, you would have to come up with novel ways for them to survive when food sources run out. I mean the little guys can’t just pickup and migrate to a new region where food is plentiful.
Take for example the old Nylonase bacteria phenomena. The two species that evolved to metabolize nylon waste, Flavobacterium sp.K172 and Pseudomonas sp.NK87 S, did so via changes in the enzymes only located on the plasmids. The evolutionists claimed it was the result of a new enzyme EII which was the result of a frame shift. There was one theory that the fact there are five transposable elements on plasmid pOAD2, that it suggested it was designed to be adaptive. Opponents to this notion tried to claim that transposons jump around at random without regard to the cells need, and therefore the mechanism is purely random mutation and natural selection at work.
But I don’t think they really considered the fact that transposons cleave to the DNA strand by use of their enzyme transposase, which recognize the specific nucleotide sequences (known as the insertion sequence). When that sequence is recognized the transposons insert into the DNA molecule. This then creates a direct repeat on each side of the transposons. When they’re activated, the transposase cause a genetic recombination. Studies have shown that these transposase are actually activated by external forces such as high temperature, starvation, and even poison exposure. (see Ohno, S., Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 81:2421—2425, 1984)
This of course demonstrates that contrary to just randomly jumping around, they react to environmental conditions, which in turn suggests the transposase exist within the transposons in number, for a pre-designed purpose.
Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by bluegenes, posted 04-27-2013 8:00 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by bluegenes, posted 04-28-2013 6:42 PM Just being real has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 36 of 193 (697564)
04-27-2013 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Just being real
04-27-2013 2:10 PM


Re: Understanding indirect observation
I am only asking for an observation of an important part of the process ie a reason to believe universal common decent is possible.
You are asking that the 'important part' be established by direct evidence. Here is you saying that only direct evidence is acceptable.
...their [sic] had to be a whole lot of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of all multi-celled organisms. The only evidence in biology that can demonstrate this has possibly happened would be at least one observation of the above occuring.
Direct evidence only. Yet every single step of demonstrating ID in biological organisms requires inference. No direct evidence whatsoever is used.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Just being real, posted 04-27-2013 2:10 PM Just being real has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 193 (697565)
04-27-2013 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Just being real
04-26-2013 9:17 PM


lus there is good reason to suggest that they were "designed" to cope with a variety of extreme situations where normal food supplies become scarce.
Assuming a designed response to starvation, how many generations of starvation would be a reasonable number to pass before the response would kick in?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Just being real, posted 04-26-2013 9:17 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Just being real, posted 04-29-2013 1:32 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
jbozz21
Member (Idle past 3978 days)
Posts: 46
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-19-2013


Message 38 of 193 (697566)
04-27-2013 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by NoNukes
04-27-2013 3:22 PM


And is the theory that such an organism was just like a modern bacteria? Is it necessary to assume that single celled organism cannot evolve either? Because your moral support won't join you out on that limb.
NoNukes... that is exactly what I am saying in my original post... I am saying the first micro-organism would have to be a very simple bacteria, not a complex organism with many genes. I am pretty sure that is what other scientist say as well.
The current model of the evolution of the first living organisms is that these were some form of prokaryotes,
Prokaryote - Wikipedia
Prokaryotes have less genetic information than humans.

"all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44
"And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2013 3:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2013 5:10 PM jbozz21 has replied

  
jbozz21
Member (Idle past 3978 days)
Posts: 46
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-19-2013


Message 39 of 193 (697567)
04-27-2013 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Just being real
04-26-2013 9:17 PM


Thank You Just Being Real.

"all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44
"And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Just being real, posted 04-26-2013 9:17 PM Just being real has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 193 (697568)
04-27-2013 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jbozz21
04-27-2013 2:31 PM


Mules are sterile.
Can they have fertile offspring? For example Mules and Horses cannot have fertile offspring. They are different species.
By the way, I think you meant donkeys and horses. Mules are sterile and cannot have any offspring even other mules. Female mules have been known to bear offspring, but male mules cannot sire offspring. What lesson you get from this I know not. Surely you are not calling breeding mules any sort of evolution? What's your point here.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jbozz21, posted 04-27-2013 2:31 PM jbozz21 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jbozz21, posted 04-27-2013 5:49 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 193 (697569)
04-27-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jbozz21
04-27-2013 4:21 PM


NoNukes... that is exactly what I am saying in my original post... I am saying the first micro-organism would have to be a very simple bacteria, not a complex organism with many genes.
You said a lot more than that, much of which was wrong. From the wiki article you cited:
quote:
There is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes in the overall scheme of cell evolution. Current opinions on the origin and position of eukaryotes span a broad spectrum including the views that eukaryotes arose first in evolution and that prokaryotes descend from them, that eukaryotes arose contemporaneously with eubacteria and archeabacteria and hence represent a primary line of descent of equal age and rank as the prokaryotes, etc...
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jbozz21, posted 04-27-2013 4:21 PM jbozz21 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jbozz21, posted 04-27-2013 5:46 PM NoNukes has replied

  
jbozz21
Member (Idle past 3978 days)
Posts: 46
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-19-2013


Message 42 of 193 (697573)
04-27-2013 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Blue Jay
04-25-2013 9:19 PM


Thanks Blue Jay,
I was still stressing out about whether or not it was okay for a Mormon to accept evolution.
I don't think it is not "ok" for a Mormon to believe in evolution. I believe that is totally the wrong question. That question seems to me to be more of a question whether it is socially acceptable or not. The real question is, "Is the data conclusive or not?" I have come to my own conclusion that the data is totally inconclusive about the "facts" of evolution by decent from a common ancestor. This is very different than what they actually teach you in high school when you are young and impressionable and will basically believe whatever the "authorities" tell you unless you have good parents who know better.
you've made a big deal about how you won't accept scientific conclusions that aren't verified by multiple, independent research studies. Yet, you didn't even make it through those 9 posts without violating those standards yourself.
If I have then I am sorry, please quote me on this, where have I held a double standard?
I submit that the actual criterion you're using to determine the validity of ideas is the degree to which they conform to your pre-existing beliefs. Reproductive isolation between humans and apes works well for your beliefs, so you accept it without looking for scientific verification; but, macroevolution doesn't square with your pre-existing beliefs, so you demand all kinds of scientific rigor there.
again as far as I know I have not used any arguments that are not completely logical and based on well proven facts.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to confirm that two populations CANNOT interbreed? Think your way through the studies you would conduct to determine that they CANNOT physically or genetically interbreed with each other.
That is what I believe is necessary to prove the point of speciation according to the definition.
For example dogs have not speciated in over "15,000" years according to modern popular science. After all that selective breeding they can still be repopulated with the Gray Wolf. Therefore they are not different species.
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.
Speciation - Wikipedia
A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
Species - Wikipedia
So if you want to classify a new species you have to prove that they cannot have fertile offspring. Otherwise you are just assuming, and if the original assumption is wrong, well that throws a big monkey wrench in the whole thing.
Therefore in order to prove that speciation actually happens by evolution then you have to prove they are different species don't you.
Darwin assumed that all of these different "species" of finches on the Galapagos Islands were different species didn't he? This was his evidence for the evolution of all species on earth from a single common ancestor. Just because they have different size beaks does not make them different species. He used Accident Fallacies to prove his point and they are still used today over and over. Just because we accept B does not mean that we have to accept A or C. He just they just assume A like you are going to accept it, because they assumed it and it works. Many people are convinced.
Many classification of species has been totally misplaced, there are less species than what actually is classified and recorded. That is the basic argument of Creationism. It is true too. There has never been an actual recorded speciation event. Many of the species that people classify can actually be classified into one species.
Besides that if you look up the line in the phylogenetic tree, many of the classifications don't even have solid definitions. Such as Genus, Family and Order.
Genera and higher taxonomic levels such as families are used in biodiversity studies, particularly in fossil studies since species cannot always be confidently identified and genera and families typically have longer stratigraphic ranges than species.
Genus - Wikipedia
the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies
Scientists cannot even confidently classify species. They don't even follow a solid definition of Species. What does that say about the entire theory of evolution from a common ancestor? Very shaky indeed. Kinda like the great and spacious building without a foundation at all, or the foolish man who built his house upon the sand.

"all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44
"And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2013 9:19 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Blue Jay, posted 04-28-2013 12:33 AM jbozz21 has replied
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-28-2013 1:32 PM jbozz21 has replied

  
jbozz21
Member (Idle past 3978 days)
Posts: 46
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-19-2013


Message 43 of 193 (697574)
04-27-2013 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by NoNukes
04-27-2013 5:10 PM


NoNukes, I love how you make broad claims that you don't support at all. Makes me think you cannot support your claims.

"all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44
"And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2013 5:10 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2013 8:37 PM jbozz21 has replied

  
jbozz21
Member (Idle past 3978 days)
Posts: 46
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-19-2013


Message 44 of 193 (697575)
04-27-2013 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by NoNukes
04-27-2013 4:40 PM


Re: Mules are sterile.
By the way, I think you meant donkeys and horses. Mules are sterile and cannot have any offspring even other mules. Female mules have been known to bear offspring, but male mules cannot sire offspring. What lesson you get from this I know not. Surely you are not calling breeding mules any sort of evolution? What's your point here.
yes, that is what I meant thank you. I am saying that that is the definition of a species. Those two animals cannot have fertile offspring. They are different species.

"all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44
"And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2013 4:40 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Granny Magda, posted 04-27-2013 6:03 PM jbozz21 has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 45 of 193 (697576)
04-27-2013 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jbozz21
04-27-2013 5:49 PM


Re: Mules are sterile.
I am saying that that is the definition of a species. Those two animals cannot have fertile offspring. They are different species.
But lions and tigers can do this (to an extent; as far as I know, only female ligers are fertile and all tigons are infertile). Are you saying that lions and tigers are the same species? That's ridiculous. Let's take a quick look at the definition that you cited.
quote:
An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.
Note the bolding. The word "usually" tells us that the ability to produce viable offspring is not always a necessity. Also, look at the last sentence; the organisms must be ecologically and recognisably the same before they can be considered as being the same species. Do you think that lions and tigers are "recognisably the same"? I would hope not.
What you have done here is to quote a source that actually disproves your point. You failed to understand what you were reading so badly that you actually cited evidence against your own position as if it were supporting.
Take a moment to reflect upon that. Do you really think that someone who is capable of misreading the situation so badly is capable of seriously challenging the Theory of Evolution?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jbozz21, posted 04-27-2013 5:49 PM jbozz21 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jbozz21, posted 04-27-2013 7:02 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024