Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   My Questions about Evolution
PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 28 (63832)
11-01-2003 6:40 PM


I have quite a few questions, i'll start simple though and build up.
Question #1--- Abiogenesis
how come no one can explain this to me? I've asked this a few times on scienceforums.net, and mostly i get people telling me i need extensive chemistry knowledge--- but i refuse to believe there is not some simpler way for someone to give me a foundation of understanding about it. Can someone at least tell me the ancestors of bacteria, and a simpler, but sufficent explanation of how and why they evolved.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brian, posted 11-01-2003 7:03 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 2 of 28 (63835)
11-01-2003 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PeriferaliiFocust
11-01-2003 6:40 PM


Hi,
The thread title is 'questions about evolution', I think you will find that evolution does not attempt to address abiogenesis, it is not part of what evolution claims.
It would be acceptable to certain evolutionists for God to put the first organisms on Earth and everything to evolve from these organisms.
So, abiogenesis does nothing at all to undermine evolution.
Finally, since you seem well informed on scientific matters, could you inform me as to how a creationist explains abiogensis scientifically?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 11-01-2003 6:40 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 28 (63838)
11-01-2003 7:25 PM


ok i'll accept that for now (but i know a lot claim there is abiogenesis and no god), next question then---
If evolution is gradual, why are there any distinct species? I don't see why there wouldn't be as much 'intermediate' species as 'definate' ones, if evolution is how it works. I'm not saying all evolution is wrong(or that i understand it well enough to say(thats why i'm asking)), i can definately accept natural selection, but i don't see one species changing into another. All dogs have the same amount of chromosomes--- though their appearance and general behavior varies from breeds. For there to become a new species, there must be a different number of chromosomes, is there such thing as a partial chromosome(i'm pretty sure there isn't)? If not, how does a creature suddenly gain more or less chromosomes?
Also, just for fun--- anyone have a list of the number of chromosomes various species (plant, animal, other(don't all bacteria and protists only have one though?)?

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 11-01-2003 7:57 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 5 by TheoMorphic, posted 11-01-2003 8:29 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2003 8:47 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 12 by Zhimbo, posted 11-02-2003 1:05 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 22 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-03-2003 5:57 AM PeriferaliiFocust has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 28 (63840)
11-01-2003 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PeriferaliiFocust
11-01-2003 7:25 PM


chromonemal vs chromosomal kingdoms
Because Boscovich found TWO return directions from infinity while I personally do not believe in "poltergeist". I am looking at Whitehouse's one polaron - one operon hypothesis and may have other things to ask about why you think the "species" is not problematic but meanwhile I am attempting to respond to Percy and Ipetrich on analogy to DNA computers. It is cleat to me a discontinuty could easily be found if one rejects the relationship between protein descuriptors and natural language that may accompany ANY thought of heridity and encodings but then I speak of my own understanding of the variation which Saymsu has questioned. Matchette in an OUTLINE OF METAPHYSICS express a relation between "the Referent- Referend relationship and Minor Polarites" so if the polarized mutants fall wholly with the phenemenology of this philosophy AND some rejection of information and biology by means of to be known knowable energy transmission there may be means to show, perhaps with the notion of dense in itself (vs that which is not) in point sets to get distinct kinds if not species even in a continuum (gradualisms). Of course Gould would have none of this. Given that Matchette found a tension "along the line" between two relative states by Major Polarity approaching the absolute as the MINOR POLARITY I will need to encapsulate the notion of Fisher's relatin of cousins biometry, selection in opposite direction, the"geometry" of DNARNAPROTEINS with an INSIDE AND OUTSIDE and the chemical rxns that can take this material in different physical directions chemically AS THE SAME LINE before you need sufficiently agree with me MY assertion is that the difference is due to the two infinites (not being believed by secular scientists) are only ONE potential and a lot of verbiage (see Towards an Understanding of the Mechanism of Heredity by HLK Whitehouse 1965 Edward Arnold London.). If evos continue to cite the Bible as excess wordings it will eventually dawn on the atheist as well that the Bible because of its consistently the same message will not proliferate to any economic rate of increase which the current relation of biology and technology continues to remand. A third alternative Matchetee mentioned was "Newtonian particles" but by subscribing to this more limited reading of science I got flaged, committed and expelled from Cornell in part for being "religious" to someone who was not even though I knew I was not (being such (at the time)). Actually when I first cam across this information I was rather struck by the large number of names and not kinds as it was not problematic for me to recognize a toad is different from a frog and woodhouse toad from the american while the grey treefrog was of two differently breeding populations but it was a problem for me to understand why tag out one of the exemplars of any of these populations with a plethora of naming titles KING PHILLP CAME OVER FROM G, S ....Also there is quite a difference in the use of varities in plants that would not find the same subjectivity but as you suggested in animals. Many people thought about species as nautral before they tried to coordinate the information on chromosomes to hereditary transmission. I would say you are being confused in the second instance by the attempts to understand informtaion (which can come non-biologically as well) in terms of heritibility. That is a difficult thought. I know others here may differ from me on this last, but heritibily aready supposes some kind of population thinking which has also been a relatively new pedgogically useful tool. The book I mentioned diffentites between kinds that are chromosomal and those that are chromonemal. My guess is that that is all this/the information amounts to anyway with friction occuring in chromonemal kinds due to the circular nature of the replication topology that gives only "waves" (Bateson vibration) to form-making in that restricted translation in space while the chromosomal forms have been able by torision reducing adaptations to friction integration extablished disjunt material configs that arose differences genus by genus. But hey- what Do I know- I got the boot from the revoutionary evolutionists. Still I need to do a little more digging into the facts before my polarity is that duality but we'll see if I ever go back and post under the evolution of the eye. Tht is not a Y.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 11-01-2003 7:25 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
TheoMorphic
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 28 (63847)
11-01-2003 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PeriferaliiFocust
11-01-2003 7:25 PM


Brad McFall writes:
Because Boscovich found TWO return directions from infinity while I personally do not believe in "poltergeist".
it's lines like that that just make me lose interest in Brad's posts...
navajoeverclear: i'm going to take a stab at your first question. i'm not sure if i'm right, but from my understanding of evolution, it sounds right. Groups of organisms progress as groups, and not as discreet species. Most organisms have to be compatible enough with another of its kind to be able to reproduce. So if you have a group of dogs, and they are interbreeding, some differences may mutate into the population, however the differences are spread through out the group because they all inter breed. The change in species occurs when these differences build up over time. The only way for this to happen is if a single group is separated in to multiple groups, and then each separate group accumulates mutations over time.
Ok, this may be way off, so please someone correct me if i'm wrong. If what i said above is correct (for the most part) then in asexually reproducing organisms we should see a lot of blurring between "species", not the seemingly discreet lines between bisexual animals (bisexual... that can't be right). Do we see this?
edit: fixed quote
[This message has been edited by TheoMorphic, 11-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 11-01-2003 7:25 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 11-01-2003 8:59 PM TheoMorphic has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 28 (63855)
11-01-2003 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PeriferaliiFocust
11-01-2003 7:25 PM


How interested in this are you really?
If you want to take time digging into this one this you will find is that your prediction from evolutionary theory is correct. Species are not all that distinct. There is a constant problem of drawing ines and deciding when there is a species separation and not. There are several different definitions of species as well. All of varying usefullness.
Not all species lines are blurred some are and some are more distinct. If a population has been separated in some way from others close to it then it may have had a chance to become a very clearly distinct species but this isn't always the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 11-01-2003 7:25 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 28 (63859)
11-01-2003 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TheoMorphic
11-01-2003 8:29 PM


Would you rather a long long long post like the many I stareted and tired of following up because no one probably even READ them? The reason that Boscovich is not followed would first have to have explained why Maxwell is not followed, if this is photon of light, what Einstein's clock has to do with it, if you have the form not confused in this time, should a codon not be a codeable language..then to issues of questioned information transfer in creationist literature by Lammerts etc rejection of you or I being a cyberntetic insect for economics or redution of/in topobiology, how many cells in the population sequestered, why not use the creationist argument from similarity instead of one infinity POTENTIAL and many lexos per any grammetology, deconstruction of panbiogoegraphy.something else I forgot when trying to type this as fast as I could think it up... I would never post one iota beyond what I already have if I did not use short hand. Theo- you said something about all being digital if I recall rereading one of yours but look I did not say WHAT information was wrong.
I acutally DID say how the kinds we normally think of in life that ARE seperated may be causally seperable on acount of the difference in the kinematics of DNA replication. This is a fact if true. The internet makes a great place to document ideas like the older patent invetors used to use paper for. That I have a philosophy to back up what I say should not be the barrier to your understanding unless you let is substitute for the simple learning that we all must do. And indeed you are correct that the issue of sexuality is within this line - but I am not up to working that up any further than the text I referred to tonight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TheoMorphic, posted 11-01-2003 8:29 PM TheoMorphic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2003 9:46 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 28 (63870)
11-01-2003 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brad McFall
11-01-2003 8:59 PM


This is a fact if true.
And Brad as long as there are things like this in your writing I will continue to read very little of it. It is just too hard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 11-01-2003 8:59 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 11-01-2003 10:05 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 28 (63873)
11-01-2003 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
11-01-2003 9:46 PM


Nosy there IS NOTHING hard about it.
The thread head asks in the context of gradualism how differences can be objectively determined.
Dynamics IS NOT kinematics. That is a fact is it not?
I said that the species of bacteria and other small kinds may indeed be "blurred" in the sense that the LOGIC in the original question that was brought up in this thread but that those that realy have sustained the brunt of knowledge in biological change the marsupials, birds, some frogs, a worm, the tunicate etc BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME process but a different pattern (hence seperatness) than the chromonemals. I did not say what defined the kinemtics differently that permits this interpreation which is what is needed epistemelogically and hence "if true" but this does not change the ontology in fact in the factual analysis of the logic in the question that I did answer in a way. There is nothing hard about it. We merely need to do the work to find out if ironically the rigor implied also holds up for any other comers to the consensus. The most interesting thing is that I have come to my understanding NOT by doing expensive expts but simply by reading and understanding whay I read. This work for reading the Bible as well. I think that Fisher may be wrong about the additivity when it came to USING a frequency histogrqm but becuase I had not written up the alternative nor done a simple linguistic check I framed my answer to avoid that which may NOT be true in the SAME fact. What was hard was that I used the issue of replication in both a spatially restricted and constricted sense but I refused in the writing of this post to write the same naturalism in any sense that destricts beyond the idea of relations of RNA, DNA, and proteins which could be not followed if one chooses instead to respond to the poster in a historical sense than the postmodern one I avoided in lexos but not grammer having to do with some idea of the same analogically for which I merely * THOUGHT* of one cell for any number of populations as to the level I was to have spoken any level of selection from. But look it is not me that is hard . It is just hard to contain all of the biology in one's mind at the time that every word is being written. This is not God's problem when writing the BOOK by inspired man but only in our reading of it. But again the soma is not your flesh to say nothing of a teleollgy that is probably missing instead IN THE SAME BIOLOGY. Again, again, it is not me..I have spent years with this stuff. What I write is not hard. It is mild.
In the text I cited, back in the 60s instead of thinking in "information science" terms they simply thought of DNA with proteins in the groove. I merely pointed out that our better detailed knoweldge of the realtion of proteins via RNAs ACROCSS what was crucial for DeVries in an even earlier time permits the seperation of species taxonomically if not neontologically EVEN IF ONE DISBELIEVES IN BARAMINOLOGY. You missed the EvC target I am sorry to report. good luck and god bless. Best Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2003 9:46 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2003 10:24 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 28 (63876)
11-01-2003 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brad McFall
11-01-2003 10:05 PM


Brad i read this much:
Dynamics IS NOT kinematics. That is a fact is it not?
I said that the species of bacteria and other small kinds may indeed be "blurred" in the sense that the LOGIC in the original question that was brought up in this thread but that those that realy have sustained the brunt of knowledge in biological change the marsupials, birds, some frogs, a worm, the tunicate etc BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME process but a different pattern (hence seperatness) than the chromonemals. I did not say what defined the kinemtics differently that permits this interpreation which is what is needed epistemelogically and hence "if true" but this does not change the ontology in fact in the factual analysis of the logic in the question that I did answer in a way.
I don't understand a bit of it. This is why I don't read your posts. It is just too hard for me. I'm not smart enough or don't have enough vocabularly is possible. It is also possible that you are going to have to write in simpler sentences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 11-01-2003 10:05 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 11-01-2003 10:39 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 28 (63879)
11-01-2003 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
11-01-2003 10:24 PM


I hope this helps
If translation and transcription of Bacteria occurs in a circle then there on replication there will be some twist or torque that makes up some volume that may be some part of the nature and or nuture of whatever it is that microbiologists name as in these smaller kinds.
Overtime, with mutation, recombination and irreversible error the space of this twisting (projected to one graph) can be functional for a particular kind by bending of the protein periphery only so far. This remands the chromnemal kingdom as a whole once the dynamics is concluded.
What I suggested was the cause of this is the same for the chromosomals only what is unitary and gradual IN THE SAME GRADUALISM becomes discontinous and seperate morphologically but continuity in space and time is sustained by the same replication process only the "circle" that shadows said projective space morphometeticlly in the chromosomals which is the functional limit of any changes that could account for any differnce of chromonemal kinds is maintained by different numbers of chromosomes per kind associated with different patterns of recombination.
What was lexically missing was the need to rigoursly asses if the facts of recombination and replication hold up for this ontologically confident prejudgement of a unifed means to see all taxonomically differences as informationally the same. I suspect that only Bariminology will be not divided against itself enough to reenvelop this. But that is "off thread topic". Regardless of the missing fact the topology remains consistent and this was all I needed to deal with the notion of mutation that historically intervened from the time in biological history that I am putting into question.
If you need further clarification let me know. I am happy to help. Best Brad.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2003 10:24 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 11-02-2003 1:06 AM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 11-02-2003 1:07 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 12 of 28 (63896)
11-02-2003 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by PeriferaliiFocust
11-01-2003 7:25 PM


Clearly your statement:
quote:
For there to become a new species, there must be a different number of chromosomes,
can't be true, as many species share the same number of chromosomes. Chromosome addition/deletion is rare, except in plants that can hybridize.
As per distinct species there are two answers:
1. Species aren't as distinct as you might think. The edges are blurry. Check out information on "ring species", for example. It's very difficult to draw lines between many species.
2. However, there is some reality to the concept of species - the divisions aren't arbitrary. But how is this inconsistent with evolution? Today's living species represent a cross section of the branches of an evolutionary tree - you would therefore expect distinct groups of organisms, not completely smooth gradations between groups. The smooth gradations occur through time, not within one slice of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 11-01-2003 7:25 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 28 (63897)
11-02-2003 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Brad McFall
11-01-2003 10:39 PM


Re: I hope this helps
edited to kill duplicate
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 11-01-2003 10:39 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 28 (63898)
11-02-2003 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Brad McFall
11-01-2003 10:39 PM


Re: I hope this helps
Brad writes:
If translation and transcription of Bacteria occurs in a circle then there on replication there will be some twist or torque that makes up some volume that may be some part of the nature and or nuture of whatever it is that microbiologists name as in these smaller kinds.
Ok let's just stick to that sentence. Could you explain it? Just it! Don't add. Just cut it up and explain what it means. I'm about 87% sure it is pure junk. Sorry about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 11-01-2003 10:39 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 11-02-2003 12:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 28 (63903)
11-02-2003 2:12 AM


Whoa, i need time to recuberate from Brad. Sorry Brad, i'm sure there could be much intelligence in your post, but i didn't understand much, a lot of it included references to people i know about nothing about, and the rest of it---- i don't know what to say. Its hardly english. I think you could tell from my posts that i am not an educated biologist, to be precise i am not even 17 yet, and while i have certain talents, i am certainly not a genius.
Like Ned said, its not a matter of WHAT you are saying, the matter is that we don't understand what you're saying. Could you try to be more simple (rather extremely i think it requires)? This may be off the subject, but HOW did you come about all this insane knowledge? Do you read all day? Why? Who are your parents (what are they like)? Where do you live? How old are you? What are you doing in life? Do you have a family (wife and children)? ------ sorry if that seems pointess (it probably is), the problem is that the things you say go over my head-- i'd be interested to know what factors influence that problem, and which is first step of hoping (there is always hope) to find a solution. I hope none of that offends you, its not my intention. If you want please address these questions straight forward, if not please don't go off on another branch, i don't have the attention span.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 11-02-2003 11:06 AM PeriferaliiFocust 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