|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5022 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Strongbow Junior Member (Idle past 5227 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
quote: That is one possible definition of species, but not comprehensive, and maybe not even accurate. I assume you'd agree that Lions and Tigers are separate species, yet Ligers do exist:
Liger - Wikipedia Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Strongbow Junior Member (Idle past 5227 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
It's important to remember that the concept of a "species" is one created by human beings for our own convenience to describe an observed phenomenon. Exactly what constitutes a species is going to be a bit elusive, because as we learn more, we learn that as a concept, it's more descriptive than restrictive. And when it fails to describe the phenomena you are looking to describe, then it must change, or even disappear all together. A species is a bit like pornography in that it may be hard to define precisely, but most people knpow it when they see it.
![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Strongbow Junior Member (Idle past 5227 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
quote: I agree, of course. In fact, I REALLY agree. ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Strongbow Junior Member (Idle past 5227 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
quote: Jeez...a little touchy eh? I meant only that it's sometimes difficult to draw a bright line between species, because it's more of a descriptive concept than a definitive set of criteria. In the same way , it's sometimes difficult to draw a bright line between provacative, but legitimate sexually-themed art and porno. If that's too hard to follow, consider language.... when did Old English become Middle English? When did Middle English become Elizabethan English? When did Elizabethan English morph into Modern English? The changes are slow, and gradual. I don't think you could define a date where everything before was one thing and everything after another. Species are quite similar in that respect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Strongbow Junior Member (Idle past 5227 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
Common ERV's an excellent way to determine common ancestors, if DNA is available. They allow very detailed evolutionary relationships to be determined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Strongbow Junior Member (Idle past 5227 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
quote: Roger that... I misinterpreted your reply and misunderstood your postion. My apologies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Strongbow Junior Member (Idle past 5227 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
quote: OK.... I'm a bit confused.... how do we know that? Why couldn't humans have descended from an individual from one part of the population, and chimps/bonobos descended from an individual in another part of the population?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Strongbow Junior Member (Idle past 5227 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: I think it's silly to say that a gene does not contain the information for coding a protein. Equally it's silly to think that kind of information is quantifiable.The only reason I can see for denying that the section of DNA that codes for a protein contains the information for that protein is the nonsense and equivocation we've had to put up with from Creo's regarding the information issue. I think it is a very sad day for science when we retreat for using perfectly sensible terminology for that reason. I think it's silly to say that a gene does not contain the information for coding a protein. Equally it's silly to think that kind of information is quantifiable.The only reason I can see for denying that the section of DNA that codes for a protein contains the information for that protein is the nonsense and equivocation we've had to put up with from Creo's regarding the information issue. I think it is a very sad day for science when we retreat for using perfectly sensible terminology for that reason. I agree.. what we need to get across is that the infromation in DNA is intrinsic to the chemistry of the molecule itself, rather than abstract. With computer code, we can map the symbols to functions of a processor in what fashion we want. As long as the programmer and the processor designer are using the same assumptions, the abstract relationship itself doesn't matter. With DNA, and chemsitry in general, the meaning is instrinsic to the molecule. If Gene A codes fro Proteins W and X, it cannot be redefined as coding for Protiens Y and Z. The chemsitry just doesn't work. Abstract information is the prduct of an intelligent agent. Intrinsic information might be, or might not. Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025