|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
That's some pretty confusing formatting you've got there.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
You claimed that:
We all have eyes from a common design.
I repeat, what are the design features common to human eyes and ant eyes? Where is the ant cornea? iris? etc. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Posters here have told me that all bones etc in being reused are therefore vestigial from previous bodies. A vestigial structure is one that serves no function or a rudimentary function compared to the same structure in another species. Bones that are reused and serve a primary function would not be vestigial.
its makes my point about the poverty and not the point , you seem to be trying to say, of a common thing.
So what you are saying is that evolution tends to find viable functions for structures to fill instead of not using them.
Evolution here is making a absurd numbers claim.
No, that would be you. You are the one making the claim that vestigial features should be numerous if evolution is true without ever backing it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
the flaw is that that a biological claim is based not on biology but geology. The transitional nature of a fossil is determined by the morphology of the fossil alone. It has nothing to do with geology.
without the geology saying there has been great time the biology claim of evolution fails.
Geology does indicate long ages, so what is the problem?
The observation of the casts of bodies is not demonstrating evolution . They could easily be seen as simply a diverse speciation. So fossils don't indicate evolution but instead indicate . . . EVOLUTION!!! Diverse speciation IS EVOLUTION.
In studying the fossils there is very little biology going on.
That's a straight up lie.
Biology is about living/or recently living tissue and delicate instruments to handle it.
Biology also includes how former species worked, how they were put together, and how they were related to one another. Fossils are an important piece of this puzzle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I understand the radar genes for both dolphins and bats is the same. It isn't. Dolphins use a fatty melon to focus soundwaves. Bats do not. Also, radar uses electromagnetic frequencies. Bats and dolphins use sound waves.
further bats is rightly in the bird section as it is only about a flying division.
Are house flies in the same section?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
having two eyes is a very common thing in nature. Having no eyes is far more common. The vast majority of species do not have eyes.
From a common blueprint.
Eyes do not have a common blueprint.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Taq.
Actually, Robert's right about "radar genes" (if, by "radar genes," you mean, "one gene whose protein product is involved in sonar").
This is what Robert is talking about. Here is another article (from Science). To summarize: there is a protein in mammalian ears called prestin, which is involved in processing high-frequency sound. While the sequence of the gene for prestin varies widely across mammals, it is virtually identical in bats and dolphins (although, the Science article clarifies that it's only the functional parts of the protein that are identical), and the researchers have hypothesized that the same sequence of mutations occurred in both. I haven't read very far into it yet. However, if the sequence for the gene for prestin actually were identical in bats and dolphins (which apparently doesn't seem to be the case), then I would personally be obliged to regard it as evidence for some (small) measure of "tinkering" design, simply because it would violate the nested hierarchy that serves as one of our favorite evidences for evolution. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Bluejay
I haven't read very far into it yet. However, if the sequence for the gene for prestin actually were identical in bats and dolphins ... My understanding is that selection for echolocation produced similar modifications to the protein. This would be similar to convergent evolution of skin flaps in sugar gliders and flying squirrels, just at a molecular level. My bet is that selection on the protein has to do with improved ability to hear high frequencies, where echolocation works best. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Actually, Robert's right about "radar genes" (if, by "radar genes," you mean, "one gene whose protein product is involved in sonar"). In a prior post he spoke about the actual anatomical structures so I assumed he was doing the same in this post. My mistake.
To summarize: there is a protein in mammalian ears called prestin, which is involved in processing high-frequency sound. While the sequence of the gene for prestin varies widely across mammals, it is virtually identical in bats and dolphins (although, the Science article clarifies that it's only the functional parts of the protein that are identical), and the researchers have hypothesized that the same sequence of mutations occurred in both. To be more specific, the cetacean and bat genes share some of the same mutations that are not found in other mammalian species and was not found in the common ancestor. However, the sequence is divergent in other sections of the protein.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
It is worth emphasising the difference between similarities in protein sequence and in genetic sequence. There were 2 key papers on this subject in the same 2010 issue of Current Biology (Liu et al., 2010; Li et al, 2010). In both papers they principally focus on protein sequence, and find convergence. However when the same analysis is performed using the underlying genetic sequence the convergence is lost. In fact even just including another echo-locating cetacean, the sperm whale, reorders the trees to what would be expected rather than grouping the bats and dolphins together.
You can extract an anomalous tree from the DNA sequence, but only if you focus on mutations generating non-synonymous substititions. The gene is certainly not 'virtually identical' even in the 'functional parts' of the 744 amino acid long protein. In comparisons between 14 species of bat and 4 dolphin species they only found 14 convergent amino acid sites, and these conserved sites were distributed amongst the various species. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1499 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Wounded King writes: That's some pretty confusing formatting you've got there. Thanks -- I try to be as obtuse as possible at every opportunity TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Wounded King writes: This creationist sees bats as just rodents who instantly upon spreading out from the ark found a empty sky and filled it somewhat. so i see the wings and radar as just minor adaptations. Another case of creationist super-macro-evolution I guess. Ape to human in 5-7 million years, no way, Rat to bat in a few thousand years, no problem. Just out of interest where were all the birds that the sky was so empty? TTFN, WK No evolution by selection/mutation but instead instead adaptation with biological triggers had to be the way.The sky before the flood would of been full of creatures flying including the taradachy (sp) one. Also the issue of clean/unclean birds and the general slowness to refill such a great space would give other creatures a chance to take to the sky. So rodents did. just as in water mammals found a empty sea to fill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Straggler writes: RB writes: This creationist sees bats as just rodents who instantly upon spreading out from the ark found a empty sky and filled it somewhat. Can I ask why just rodents? Why not monkeys or foxes or even humans? Why didn't lots of different creatures "instantly upon spreading out from the ark find an empty sky and fill it somewhat"? Imagine a race of humans with wings and radar. By the terms of your argument this should be possible "instantly" given a nice empty sky. No? Creatures need to be small enough to get off the ground. in fact birds have hollow bones as I understand.Gliding creatures is quite common. The bible talks of snakes who do this. Possibly other small creatures did take to the sky but went extinct later with so many others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: Robert Byers writes: This creationist sees bats as just rodents who instantly upon spreading out from the ark found a empty sky and filled it somewhat. O_o Do you have any idea how diverse bats are? One in five mammal species are bats. 1 in 5! Bats aren't some obscure offshoot of rats, they're an extraordinarily diverse and variable group of animals. Bats are an order of mammals, equivalent in significance to the group Carnivora that includes dogs, cats, seals, weasels, bears, red panda, civets and so on. Are you really suggesting that they can be written off as rats who saw the sky and wanted to fly? Orville's more successful rat relatives? Come on!
so i see the wings and radar as just minor adaptations. relative. there should be no bat fossils below the k-t line. "Wings and radar [sic]" are minor adaptations? What can possibly count as a "non-minor" adaptation then? If you're happy with bats, all 1100 species of them, evolving from rats in just 4000 years, and evolving sonar and flight in that time what on earth is the limit that stops evolution explaining the rest of life's diversity? I just found out on wiki even people have trained their brains to use radar by noise for blindness. no big deal. no time needed.Diversity in bats is just a quick adaptation after the flood. Within a century all there ever were in types had arrived. no evolution as such. creatures are limited by their kinds. its not common creationist opinion but its demanding and reasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: the flaw is that that a biological claim is based not on biology but geology. without the geology saying there has been great time the biology claim of evolution fails. But this is simply not true. The strongest evidence for Evolution is all drawn from living species. evolution relys a great deal on the fossil record. Without it evolution fails.I don't see evolution being greatly based on biological research. I mean by biology actual research of living life.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024