Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,280 Year: 5,537/9,624 Month: 562/323 Week: 59/143 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 52 of 331 (455879)
02-14-2008 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Marcosll
02-14-2008 11:07 AM


Rausages
I think there are some problems with this. Firstly people like dogs coats so there is going to be a strong selective pressure on many species to maintain those coats.
As for speech, I would suspect that if people want talking dogs then a technological solution, or even possibly a genetically engineered one, could be reached well before evolution had a chance.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Marcosll, posted 02-14-2008 11:07 AM Marcosll has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 78 of 331 (468884)
06-02-2008 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by randman
06-02-2008 2:07 AM


Common ancestry is deeper that the immediate inheritance of a phenotypic trait.
So considering genes for specific morphological and behavioural similarities may well likely be similar
So you are using the massive assumption that these genes are 'likely' to be similar, with no apparent substantiation, to deny common ancestry? You don't think that is the sort of assertion that might merit evidence to support it? Do you mean the specific genetic basis of the novel traits? In that case the assumption is even larger.
The idea that similar phenotypic traits do not imply common ancestry is clearly established, which is why convergent morphological evolution is recognised. But what evidence is there that there is an indistinguishable genetic basis? I can readily believed that the same genes or pathways may be involved but I doubt that the same mutations are.
It seems eminently possible that selection for tameness could be effectively select for a reduced level of something like testosterone which could affect behaviour, fertility and hair development. But there are many possible mutations that could produce such a reduction either in the many proteins involve in the testosterone biosynthesis pathway, the androgen receptor molecule which mediates testosterone signalling or proteins interacting with the androgen receptor. Would similar effects from disrupting the same developmental pathway, albeit as a side effect of selecting for a behavioural trait, not be the result of common ancestry? labeit at a deeper level, i.e. not the inheritance of the trait from the common ancestor but of the gene regulatory network which leads to the expression of a cluster of similar traits when it is disrupted in a similar way.
Fodor seems to be arguing against a strawman ultra-adaptationist form of Darwinian theory, in which every trait must be adaptive, that you would be hard pressed to find anyone subscribing to.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 2:07 AM randman has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 86 of 331 (473493)
06-30-2008 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Beretta
06-30-2008 4:53 AM


evolving a better program
Can you turn a story or a computer programme into a better story or programme by random spelling mistakes and selection of the best ones.
Yes, you can. In the case of programs this was demonstrated in the Lenski et al. paper in Nature (1999).
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Beretta, posted 06-30-2008 4:53 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 97 of 331 (473608)
07-01-2008 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Beretta
07-01-2008 8:08 AM


Re: Faith vs Fact
The kind invariably arises suddenly and without provable precursors because they are fossils.
We can't prove they are precursors because they are fossils, this is certainly true. So in the absence of a time machine neither the fossil record alone proves neither the idea of the gradual evolution nor of the sudden de novo appearance of created kinds.
We do however have considerable evidence for morphological change coming about as a result of genetic mutation and none to suggest there are any identifiable limits to what this can encompass. We also have no evidence suggesting that new 'kinds' of life suddenly appear de novo.
Your standard of proof seems useless as a scientific concept.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 07-01-2008 8:08 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Beretta, posted 07-02-2008 8:13 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 138 of 331 (474801)
07-11-2008 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Beretta
07-11-2008 4:25 AM


Re: ERV hype
similarity leads to similar recipes for structure; how about our recipes have similarities?
So what are the similarities between a retrovirus, a human and a chimpanzee that mean they show such highly similar recipes in so many instances?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Beretta, posted 07-11-2008 4:25 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 179 of 331 (475467)
07-16-2008 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by RAZD
07-15-2008 8:47 PM


Re: Anyone want to talk about the topic?
Do you think there is enough morphological data for you to do a comparison between Hyracotherium and modern equids the way you did between the housecat and red fox?
I have to say that my main problem with your approach is its heavy reliance on morphology over genetics. What you really seem to be arguing is that given time we could evolve one species to look like the other while staying within the boundaries of morphological variation seen between dogs and wolves.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2008 8:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2008 8:30 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 217 of 331 (476181)
07-21-2008 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by AlphaOmegakid
07-21-2008 3:26 PM


Re: Can you see my hands waiving?
Have you ever seen a plant react to light? That's not a genetic trait my friend.
Yes, it is. how do you think that phototaxis is mediated? It is through proteins produced from genes. There are a number of identified mutants, in both cyanobacteria and plants, which affect phototaxis. These can occur in photoreceptive proteins, morphogenetic growth factors, and signal transduction factors.
How do you think plants react to light?
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 3:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2008 7:37 AM Wounded King 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