Ancient Domains Of Mystery, forum overview / General / Darwinism
| Online users ( Unknown) |
| Application object not working properly at the moment, no clue who is online... * Numbers in parentheses are the number of minutes since the user last loaded a page. Logged-in users time out after 40 minutes (unless they manually log out), lurkers and anonymous posters after 20. |
This thread is 7 pages long.
| Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
|
Morio Registered user Holy Champion of ADoM Last page view: 3892 days, 17 hours, 58 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
I remember reading about an experiment with fruit flies. Two colonies of fruit flies were kept separate from each other, and after a few generations the flies from different colonies couldn't get offspring with eachother. Also some butterflies that used to be white have turned black after coal powerplants have been build and the trees aren't as white anymore. "I don't know what World War 3 will be fought with, but I know World War 4 with be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein |
||
|
Mewto Registered user Last page view: 3593 days, 22 hours, 4 minutes and 45 seconds ago. |
"Also some butterflies that used to be white have turned black after coal powerplants have been build and the trees aren't as white anymore." I read about that somewhere... The first cases were in England during the industrial revolution... after a few decades most butterfly were brown. In order to camouflage better. For the Horde! |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5470 days, 11 hours, 7 minutes and 46 seconds ago. |
They are still cattle and flies. No more, no less. The side effects of myostatin (spelled right) are not known according to some (old) links from wikipedia. "Too much muscle growth theoretically could hamper the heart's pumping". This is probably the closest thing to a beneficial mutation (not entirely man-made that is) I have yet heard of. Kudos to you Maelstrom. The peppered moths (butterflies that you are referring to) were a hoax. Firstly they don't rest on trees. The pictures of moths on trees that you may have seen were in fact of dead moths glued (yes, you read right) to the trees. Secondly, it wouldn't mean a thing if it in fact was true because it would merely be a story of moths. Before you have moths, after you still have moths. Btw, the term species is not agreed upon by the scientific community, so be careful. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3111 days, 15 hours, 11 minutes and 30 seconds ago. |
What you call it is pure semantics. The fact that they can produce fertile offspring with each other but not with other species, means that they're a seperate species. No more, no less. And " the closest thing to a beneficial mutation", that I know of, is acctually a harmfull mutation, that unhinges the metabolic chains, producing massive loss of energy. Due to it the animal must eat up to 5 times more, then it's non-mutated counter part. Add fur, body fat or feathers, and we've got endotermic animals, ladies and gentlemen. You cannot call a mutation that wastes energy like that "non-harmfull". But since it happened when plant life was flourishing, the mutated ones survived. It proved to be beneficial much later. P.S. Either Wikipedia's doing another "there are five fingers on the human hand[citation needed]", or you've just read it wrong. The effects of miostatin are known. It stops muscle growth, to preserve the resources the body has. If the animals were wild, the mutation could be pretty much fatal. But it's not. It's beneficial, because the animals don't have to worry about food. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/19/2007 at 17:03 (GMT -5) by Maelstrom] |
||
|
nOOb-mAsTeR Registered user Master of all things nOOby!!! Last page view: 5758 days, 9 hours, 37 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
Cows have evolved a lot over the past 250 years, due to selective breeding and gene therapy. Just look up pictures of cows for every 50 years, they change alot, even though they claim to be the same species. And I agree with F50, you really can't use the word species alot anymore. "You try to give Fang, the large dog the bone. Fang, the large dog says,"Do you know who I am, mortal?!?!" My smartest dog ever:D |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4233 days, 19 hours, 42 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
I don't see anything wrong with using the word species as long as we're clear what we're talking about. From the Wikipedia article: "Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring." As a couple of examples, dogs are part of the wolf family since they can breed naturally with other canines. But lions and tigers are seperate since their offspring is infertile. There is some difficulty getting a defiiton that works well with all lifeforms (as is to be expected), but I don't think our little debate is really going to get into the little nitty-gritties of that. I suppose it could be argued though that having trouble drawing the lines between species shows that everything wasn't made seperately by some intelligent designer. Not a very strong point, I'll admit, just thought I'd put it in context. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5470 days, 11 hours, 7 minutes and 46 seconds ago. |
Maelstrom: I didn't read into it that carefully and it might not have even mentioned the energy-wasting part. It is kind of insignificant practically (that is, outside of this kind of debate). That species can be separated with genetic variation and some minor mutations is no surprise to me. What would be a surprise is seeing a situation on a larger scale and thus genetic variation can offer very little help in the matter leaving it all to mutations. It is at this point, where a chicken grows a quite non-chicken (perhaps noodly?) appendage that I start thinking about evolution to humans. Oh and btw, skull 1470 was classified as H. Habilis "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/19/2007 at 22:35 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4233 days, 19 hours, 42 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
F50, I think maybe you're failing to consider over just what lengths of time we're considering. If small changes can happen within a few centuries, think of the variations that will occur over thousands and millions. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3111 days, 15 hours, 11 minutes and 30 seconds ago. |
That's the problem with you I.D. people. You expect quick results, and when you don't get them, you dismiss the whole theory. Small steps, one at a time. If each generation has their wing longer by 0,1mm, and the longer wings get to be usefull, with a few minor mutations along the way you'll get your noodly appendage on the chickens. In a couple thousand years, but a noodly appendage chicken nonetheless. I've always found that amusing and kind of ironic, religious people demanding immediate, easy to understdand proof, which they can observe, ignoring the fact, that they won't even notice it without years of study... A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/20/2007 at 08:52 (GMT -5) by Maelstrom] |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4233 days, 19 hours, 42 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
The general problem with a lot of proponents of ID is a stubbornness to accept a huge wealth of evidence that scientists have long ago confirmed true. Instead they attack whatever small minor flaw they can, thinking that a tiny inconsistency in one piece of evidence means the whole of evolution is a lie. Another major problem is that it's entirely concentric around the Christian god - it's based on a desire to proove religious beliefs rather than seeking out the truth (which is what science is all about, and frequently we have to accept that the truth isn't what we expected or even wanted). Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
nOOb-mAsTeR Registered user Master of all things nOOby!!! Last page view: 5758 days, 9 hours, 37 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
I find it funny how almost every single piece of information used in this argument is from Wikipedia....in school we're told to not use Wikipedia, since anyone can edit it. But of course only losers(no offense if anyone does edit wikipedia) edit wikipedia. Just listen to Weird Al's 'White and Nerdy' on youtube.... "You try to give Fang, the large dog the bone. Fang, the large dog says,"Do you know who I am, mortal?!?!" My smartest dog ever:D |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4233 days, 19 hours, 42 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
Wikipedia is usually reliable, especially for scientific information, and sensitive articles get locked down so only authorised people can edit them. The thing to check is that the article is backed up by proper sources. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
nOOb-mAsTeR Registered user Master of all things nOOby!!! Last page view: 5758 days, 9 hours, 37 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
Yeah, guess you're right. Now please tell my teachers that, so I can get some of the easiest information on the web:D "You try to give Fang, the large dog the bone. Fang, the large dog says,"Do you know who I am, mortal?!?!" My smartest dog ever:D |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4233 days, 19 hours, 42 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
Well, what I do is check out Wikipedia but quote its references instead of the Wikipedia article itself - usually that's acceptable if the reference is a proper site. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4144 days, 59 minutes and 9 seconds ago. |
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa013&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2 sort of answers to some ID position. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5470 days, 11 hours, 7 minutes and 46 seconds ago. |
The reason I believe I won't get a noodly appendage on chickens is that the mutations you have previously been talking about are only capable of so much. Firstly, I have not yet heard of a good mutation. Seccondly, even if it was undisputed that they existed, you would need enough mutations to create an entirely new segment of DNA. This is almost no different from forming DNA from raw materials (remember, creating DNA is like creating several large protiens, in order) all over again. about that article. 1. Interesting. I still say Evolution is a shaky theory, NOT a fact -- miroevolution or natural selection is a fact IMO btw. "The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling." I argue the validity of this statement. No links, Precambrian explosion, footprints at the bottom of the grand canyon, etc. Unambiguous...umm...no. It is only "unambiguous" if you can properly extrapolate tiny changes we observe today snowball together to create new genus. I don't think that is so. 2. Agree with article. 3. It is nebulous, but ultimately can be disproven or proven given complete knowledge of today's world. 4. "...serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent.". Meaningless: Abuse of the definition "serious". "...identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult." I would think that constitutes an "attack". This point is uses definitions to exclude any evidence to the contrary. 5. Agree with article about its main point...for the most part at least 6. Agree with article 7. I get a headache thinking about the very beginning, whether by ID or not. However possibility (not talking of probability here) of the creation of DNA/RNA and other proteins is debatable. 8. The point he argues against is "reasonable doubt". However I disagree with the relevance of this point. "But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days." A. Natural selection isn't that good (this is a "reasonable doubt point but...") B. 4.5 days = 388800 seconds. this means 1451520 iterations. One iteration per four months (120 days) = 476880 years. That's roughly two "Shakespeare's entire play (Hamlet I assume)" per million years. that's two thousand Hamlets per billion years or sixty-four thousand Hamlets per 32 billion years. That's not many species. And certainly not surprising. 9. Agree with article. 10. Agree with main point. (mutations do create new features) 11. Natural Selection only works within genes that are there. Mutations can go further (but not that much further). The existence of a god can be proved if it can be proved false that there was no god of any sort (ie. if Evolution is false then ID is true). 12. What this article has to say doesn't add anything to the current discussion (flies are already mentioned and answered). 13. I agree with the assertion that he is trying to prove false. "Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record." Ad infinitum, no. But really 50+ examples would prove that there are missing links. Archaeopteryx is a bird. Ambulocetus is dated later than undisputed whales so it could not have been an ancestor to them. 14. Irreducible complexity: Proteins (it is still a luck thing I know). I don't know enough about eyes or other things to really say anything else. 15. More on Irreducible complexity. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/20/2007 at 22:16 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4144 days, 59 minutes and 9 seconds ago. |
>The existence of a god can be proved if it can be >proved false that there was no god of any sort i'd like to see that. speaking about mutations: what is a good one in your mind? have in mind any extra organs take an extra energy to produce and weight to drag around. same about extra proteins and a like. about adding extra genes read about plasmids and gaining extra chromosomes/DNR sequences.(polyploids aren't so rare in plants at least.) >Natural selection isn't that good. why? p.s. cambrian explosion is best explained by reachin certain treshold in oxygen level. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/20/2007 at 23:32 (GMT -5) by Soirana] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4691 days, 14 hours, 3 minutes and 58 seconds ago. |
F50: Re: 20 Lines Dude, you're not even trying. |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4691 days, 14 hours, 3 minutes and 58 seconds ago. |
Tianjian: What are the things that I have to read more carefully? [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/21/2007 at 08:43 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4691 days, 14 hours, 3 minutes and 58 seconds ago. |
Morio: Re: God before the Universe. I'm not saying that there was no God before It created the universe. I'm saying that the concept of "before" would not apply to a concept of God that puts God outside the bounds of time/cause and affect, etc. The same applies to the Big Bang, even without God. If Time came into existence with the Big Bang (along with length, breadth and height) then there was no "before" the Big Bang. Without Time, there can be no "before." Let me try to track down the old Flatland explanation for being outside of time. |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4691 days, 14 hours, 3 minutes and 58 seconds ago. |
Darren: Re: ID being contradicted by carbon dating, etc. I think you are confusing ID with Creationism. As I understand it, ID fully supports evolution/big bang theory, etc with one addendum -- Intelligent Designists believe that there was some guiding "Intelligent" force behind evolution, controlling what mutations occurred etc. |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4691 days, 14 hours, 3 minutes and 58 seconds ago. |
MewTo and Morio: Re: God and Satan. I'm going to move God and Satan to another thread: God and Satan [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/21/2007 at 09:06 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Morio Registered user Holy Champion of ADoM Last page view: 3892 days, 17 hours, 58 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
Caladriel: post everything you have to say in one post, do not make separate posts for every little thing. Also if there was no "before" until the universe was created, god couldn't have existed before it either, which would mean that god and the universe were created at the same time "I don't know what World War 3 will be fought with, but I know World War 4 with be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4233 days, 19 hours, 42 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
Caladriel: ID is all about irreducible complexity, saying that different species can't have the same origin before they're too complex and only an overall designer could have directly made them. It directly states that evolution is incorrect and that we do not have the same origins as other animals. In the majority of cases proponents of ID lump this together with creationist theories of the Earth being made 8,000 years ago. What you say about God starting the Big Bang and having a sort of guiding hand in evolution is what most religions believe, as far as I'm aware. ID and Creationism both take it a step further, saying that current scientific theories are completely wrong. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/21/2007 at 11:36 (GMT -5) by Darren Grey] |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3111 days, 15 hours, 11 minutes and 30 seconds ago. |
F50, all you've proven, is that you are uneducated in the field of genetics. I can't believe they don't teach you the basics on the types of mutations in school. Here, we have genetics in middle school, and a bit extended genetics in high school. P.S. Ok, I've just realised that I sound like a complete jerk. To put it simple, a deletion of 1 nucleotide changes the whole sequence. Completly. ONE little fault, which happen about 5-10% of the time (up to 30% in the case of viruses, their polymerase is quite poor, and that's their strength) creates a new gene. Not counting the other types of stuff that can happen, and not including chromosomal mutations. Just to give you a little glimpse: Cows should have 60 chromosomes, sheep and goats have 54. Nowadays we have cows with 60, 59 and 58 chromosomes, and the 58 and 60 variaty have problems breeding with each other. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/21/2007 at 16:50 (GMT -5) by Maelstrom] |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5470 days, 11 hours, 7 minutes and 46 seconds ago. |
Yes...So? Are you saying that a completely unrelated structure can be formed from one mutation? A good mutation simply makes a wild creature better able to survive. Taking extra energy is fine as long as the animal can be reasonably expected to fulfill its energy requirements. >>The existence of a god can be proved if it can be >>proved false that there was no god of any sort > >i'd like to see that. I am not going to try. I am saying that is is possible to prove/disprove *both* ID and Evolution. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom |
||
|
Morio Registered user Holy Champion of ADoM Last page view: 3892 days, 17 hours, 58 minutes and 18 seconds ago. |
DNA is built of nucleic acids which in turn are built of nucleotides (not sure if this is the correct word) which contain the bases Adenine (abbreviated A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) (in case of RNA thymine is replaced by uracil(U)) each nucleic acid contains 3 of these bases like this: ATC. These nucleic acids form the DNA, when placed in a line like this: ATA ATT AGC ACC AGA ACT (I won't even bother typing out the names of the nucleic acids :D). Then if you would remove one nucleotide like the first one the new sequence would look like this: TAA TTA GCA CCA GA. Some nucleic acids can be formed by different bases, which means that some of the DNA could still work. Also if the lost nucleotide is close to the end, it doesn't affect as much of the DNA as it would if it was right in the beginning. The DNA uses the codes to create the correct amino acids (proteins) which function as catalysators for certain chemical reactions in the body. Some times the end of the amino acid isn't needed at all, and this means that even if you lose one part of the gene for that specific amino acid it doesn't necessarily change anything at all. I hope what I said isn't completely false, it's been a while since I had anything to do with genetics. "I don't know what World War 3 will be fought with, but I know World War 4 with be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/22/2007 at 09:48 (GMT -5) by Morio] |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3111 days, 15 hours, 11 minutes and 30 seconds ago. |
Mutations are not "only capable of so much." as you said. They can change anything, down to the whole chromosome base of the animal. Meaning that not only does it loose/gain a few thousand genes, but each one is new, compared to the non-mutated counterpart. Add to that a few new mutations in each generation and natural selection. Voila, we have ourselves a new species, looking nothing like the oryginal. Just compare the highland scottish cattle to an average Angus. That's just two hundred years, without any major mutations, and without changes to the environment. Or dogs, which demonstrate how much potential lies in any species at once. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/22/2007 at 10:27 (GMT -5) by Maelstrom] |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5470 days, 11 hours, 7 minutes and 46 seconds ago. |
With dogs especially you are not talking about mutations you are talking about GENETIC VARIANCE. And "no major mutations" has genetic variance written all over it (though mutations may have had a part in it). "mutations can only do so much" to clarify: mutations have not yet had a beneficial effect (see above for definition). Assuming they do exist: A few mutations in each generation should select the whole tree out, including good mutations. Consider a deer. The slowest ones die. If you have one gene that slows you down but another that allows you to get food easier you are not likely to be able to pass the good gene down. If you do, your offspring may also suffer from the bad gene, resulting in a bad effect since you are more worried about being food less than getting food more. Natural selection selects those better suited to survive. If most mutations are bad with a good portion being benign and only a handful of good mutations (assuming they actually do exist) a few (say four) mutations/generation is way too fast. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/22/2007 at 15:59 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4144 days, 59 minutes and 9 seconds ago. |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5278028/ although i'm pretty sure it should have downside. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm just remind me why you excluded bacteria resistance to antibiotics? in general. since organisms are quite complex, change in one protein are unlikely to create something beneficial without drawback. but if it appears to have overall positive value, species may undergo some extra mutations/genetic variation combianation to fix problems. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/22/2007 at 22:32 (GMT -5) by Soirana] |
| Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |