Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,627 Year: 4,884/9,624 Month: 232/427 Week: 42/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Post-Noah's Flood Period is Explained by Evolution
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 61 of 66 (469632)
06-06-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by LucyTheApe
05-21-2008 8:31 PM


quote:
We have blue-green algae that are supposed to be about
3.5 billion years old, alive. We put the their genetic structure on
the bottom. We have man, we put their (or some more advanced)
genetic structure on top. We work out what differences in structures
relates to which characteristics in organisms between species, families, kingdoms, classes and phyla. We fill in the
table and find out which traits were picked up by which organisms.
We should be able to tell where all animals and plants , extant, extinct and unknown originated genetically, geographically and temporally.
Actually we pretty much can do this using morphological, biochemical, nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA characteristics. But it is not really correct to say we put man on the "top" and blue-green algae on the "bottom". We now know that in fact there are a lot of genetic and biochemical similarites between even the most "distant" species based on the old systematics using morphology alone. So to classify one as on the bottom and another on the top has less meaning with the modern understanding of molecular biology. You are more like blue-green algae than you can imagine. You have the same basic DNA and basic biochemistry, for one thing, with the exeption that blue-green algae can capture energy directly from the sun and you can't. So in that sense blue-green algae are actually a bit more sophisticated.
Edited by deerbreh, : remove extra word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-21-2008 8:31 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-06-2008 5:26 PM deerbreh has replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 66 (469647)
06-06-2008 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by deerbreh
06-06-2008 2:59 PM


Blue Green Humans
So to classify one as on the bottom and another on the top has less meaning with the modern understanding of molecular biology. You are more like blue-green algae than you can imagine. You have the same basic DNA and basic biochemistry, for one thing, with the exeption that blue-green algae can capture energy directly from the sun and you can't. So in that sense blue-green algae are actually a bit more sophisticated.
I don't have to catch sunlight for energy, I can go to McDonalds.
Forget the unscientific subjective morphological classification. We created the table of elements without seeing any elements. We should be able to do the same with DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by deerbreh, posted 06-06-2008 2:59 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Granny Magda, posted 06-07-2008 5:02 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 64 by deerbreh, posted 06-07-2008 11:23 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 65 by Copasetic, posted 06-09-2008 9:53 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 66 by deerbreh, posted 06-17-2008 9:23 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 63 of 66 (469738)
06-07-2008 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by LucyTheApe
06-06-2008 5:26 PM


Re: Blue Green Humans
Forget the unscientific subjective morphological classification.
Morphology is still important in making observations about living organisms and their interrelatedness. It is an essential starting point, but it is no longer the last word.
We created the table of elements without seeing any elements.
Um, what? Are you suggesting that iron was invisible before 1869? What on Earth are you talking about?
We should be able to do the same with DNA.
Why? The periodic table was predictive because it arranged elements by the their atomic number, leaving gaps for the then-unknown elements. DNA just doesn't possess the same properties.
The chemical elements are the simplest units in chemistry. The simplest units of information in DNA are the four bases, A and T, C and G. Are you suggesting that we arrange these in some order that will predict the "missing" bases? I hope not, but I can't otherwise imagine what comparison could be made here.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-06-2008 5:26 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 64 of 66 (469835)
06-07-2008 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by LucyTheApe
06-06-2008 5:26 PM


Re: Blue Green Humans
quote:
Forget the unscientific subjective morphological classification. We created the table of elements without seeing any elements. We should be able to do the same with DNA.
There is nothing unscientific about using morphology to classify organisms. Genetics controls morphology so it is nonsensical to pit one against the other. And DNA is also increasingly being used to classify organisms, particularly at the subspecies level. Your understanding of biology and genetics appears to be at a very elementary level. I have taught high school students with better understanding. I think you have some work to do before you can hope to hold your own on these boards. Sorry to sound condescending but that is how I see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-06-2008 5:26 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Copasetic
Junior Member (Idle past 5855 days)
Posts: 4
From: Ohio
Joined: 02-07-2008


Message 65 of 66 (470084)
06-09-2008 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by LucyTheApe
06-06-2008 5:26 PM


Re: Blue Green Humans
Hi Lucy,
I think what you are missing here is a few things. Firstly comparative morphology is not subjective in nature and can tell us a lot about biological organisms.
Secondly, as someone else points out, you seem to want to pit morphology against genetics. There is no need to do this. We can construct trees based on DNA, RNA, proteins, morphology etc. --And test these trees against each other. Thus, this provides another form of predictions that we can test using science.
And importantly, what we see from phylogenetics is a vast amount of evidence that agrees with each other for common ancestry.
To tie that into the original topic (and as a few pointed out above), this creates a large problem for the "evolution responsible for life after the flood" hypothesis. Because, we see nothing from genetic studies that indicate the severity of bottlenecking that would have occurred from 2 or 7 individuals producing extant populations (not that 2 or 7 individuals is even possible to sustain a population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-06-2008 5:26 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 66 of 66 (471510)
06-17-2008 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by LucyTheApe
06-06-2008 5:26 PM


Re: Blue Green Humans
quote:
We created the table of elements without seeing any elements.
It would be off topic to explain, but this is an incorrect statement. Your physical science knowledge needs a little work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-06-2008 5:26 PM LucyTheApe 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