Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,429 Year: 6,686/9,624 Month: 26/238 Week: 26/22 Day: 8/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin in the Genome
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 185 (28782)
01-10-2003 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by peter borger
01-09-2003 8:11 PM


Say, Dr Borger, does your theory acknowledge common descent? If not, how do you explain the fossil record and the taxonomic hierarchy in nature?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by peter borger, posted 01-09-2003 8:11 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by peter borger, posted 01-10-2003 5:29 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 185 (28839)
01-10-2003 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by peter borger
01-10-2003 5:29 AM


Archetypes. I see... In your exchanges with Dr Page & others your problem with common descent seem to be limited in the evolution of phyla. So I assume that you don't have any problems with evolution within phyla?
[example] Termites, my animals, evolved from wood-eating semisocial cockroaches, within Arthropoda; and insects & arachnids (spiders) evolved from the arthropod archetype. The archetype was specially created some time around the Ediacaran age/before the Cambrian explosion.
Does that follow from your theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by peter borger, posted 01-10-2003 5:29 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 01-11-2003 7:09 AM Andya Primanda has replied
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 01-13-2003 10:00 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 185 (28976)
01-13-2003 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by peter borger
01-11-2003 7:09 AM


I'll play by your rules. Okay, so the arthropod archetype existed sometime in the early Cambrian, then it evolved into the ancestors of insects, crustaceans, arachnids, etc. The ancestor of insects branched off into many orders, one became the cockroaches, and then among the cockroaches, one took the step to become termites.
Does that scenario follow your theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 01-11-2003 7:09 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by peter borger, posted 01-13-2003 9:28 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 185 (29242)
01-16-2003 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by peter borger
01-13-2003 9:28 PM


So, by following your theory, I have a scenario where the arthropod archetype existed in the Cambrian with a multipurpose genome preadapted to make every innovation within the phylum Arthropoda; the classes Crustacea, Arachnida, Myriapoda, Trilobita, Insecta & others branched off from the arthropod archetype by reducing the variation within the multipurpose genome to achieve current diversity. This process is directed by creaton particles (sensu Borger, but I am still skeptical about this part).
Back to the wood-eaters. A commonly held hypothesis about termite phylogeny is that they evolved from some ancient wood-eating cockroach. If your theory be true, then we should expect the cockroach genome to include information to 'build' termites, since your version of evolution is the reduction of possibilities from the multipurpose genome.
What do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by peter borger, posted 01-13-2003 9:28 PM peter borger has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 185 (32033)
02-12-2003 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by peter borger
02-11-2003 8:43 PM


quote:
Darwin was the first to discover the MPG, but his extrapolation of microbe-to-man evolution is completely, entirely unwarranted because the phenomena are unequal. (Unless you assume an uncommitted MPG of the original microbe we all evolved from). That Darwin’s extrapolation on variation in Galapagos finches to support ‘microbe-to-man-evolution’ is unwarranted is also demonstrated by observations that ‘his’ finches are still able to interbreed (Science, 26 April 2001). Thus, they are still the same MPG.
I assume you know that Galapagos finches are not the only organisms Darwin studied? His works suggest that he also studied pigeons, cattle, sheep, dogs, barnacles, Scottish firs, ants, cuckoos, lungfish, platypus, marine fossils, horses, wild flowers, orchids, coral reefs, etc....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 8:43 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Quetzal, posted 02-13-2003 1:11 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 185 (32082)
02-13-2003 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Quetzal
02-13-2003 1:11 AM


I get the suspicion that Dr Borger reads only book reviews. He argues by using Dr Caporale's book and said it demolishes NDT. Then he said he does not have that book. He said Darwin extrapolated finches to 'molecules to man', and as I remember it Darwin said very little about the finches; he was even talking about the Galapagos mockingbirds. I know what's in that book. I translated it into Bahasa Indonesia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Quetzal, posted 02-13-2003 1:11 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Quetzal, posted 02-13-2003 2:42 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024