Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 143 of 143

Thread: How did the DNA change over the years

  1. #101  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmicytaveler
    Ok, so if a fishs DNA mutates into an amphibian then how does a fish reproduce with that amphibian for there's only fish and that one amphibian around not hundreds of them waiting to reproduce. I just cannot wrap my head around when a mutation happens and a new species is evolved just how can that happen when all there were was fish and the one amphibian.
    A member of a species just doesn't whole cloth mutate into a different species. Changes to speciation happen over many generations and large timescales.
    Think of a room full of computers, each running a similar program. In each computer one or two bits of the machine code are randomly altered. Some of the programs will continue to run with the random change, some programs will crash with the small random change. When a program crashes it is wiped off the computer and one of the still operating programs is loaded on that machine. Then the process of randomly altering only one or two bits of the program code is reiterated. The only definable difference between any program over a single iteration is whether it crashes or not. Actual changes to program function require thousands of iterations of the program mutation process.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I can see one animal having DNA mutated but two at the exact same time is rather unusual to me.
    Every human is born with more than 100 new mutations.
    But the animals that evolved had to have had the exact DNA mutations happen at the same time so that they could mate and have offspring to further along their new species.
    Every human is born with more than 100 new mutations.

    Do you think that humans from different generations are unable to have offspring?
    I doubt that you do.

    So, why do you think that animals need to have identical mutations to be able to reproduce?
    Ok, so if a fishs DNA mutates into an amphibian then how does a fish reproduce with that amphibian for there's only fish and that one amphibian around not hundreds of them waiting to reproduce. I just cannot wrap my head around when a mutation happens and a new species is evolved just how can that happen when all there were was fish and the one amphibian.
    I think you are deliberately making silly statements like this even though you know the answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Do you think that humans from different generations are unable to have offspring?
    I doubt that you do.
    So, why do you think that animals need to have identical mutations to be able to reproduce?

    Ok, so if a fishs DNA mutates into an amphibian then how does a fish reproduce with that amphibian for there's only fish and that one amphibian around not hundreds of them waiting to reproduce. I just cannot wrap my head around when a mutation happens and a new species is evolved just how can that happen when all there were was fish and the one amphibian.


    You know this may sound silly but in this case the example might be aprapo. The moment there was a transition from 48 to 46 chromosomes the hominid no longer could breed in that population. The telomere fusion was an abrupt disruption of the genome.

    Here is a recorded instance of human chromosome number change…. The man is sterile.

    In this case it would almost certainly result in miscarriage. In fact, the 44 chromosome man's family has a long history of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions.

    His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too. And this would certainly be possible in the future given his family history. The 44 Chromosome Man | Understanding Genetics

    All it takes is a female with the same malady to perpetrate a change in number. Right, thats really going to happen.

    So there is empirical evidence of what I am saying… (sorry knew it all the time).

    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Your number is wrong… stop posting via ignorance.
    But you are an imbecile, so why should I care what bullshit you post?


    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Your number is wrong… stop posting via ignorance.
    But you are an imbecile, so why should I care what bullshit you post?
    John Galt's rules please!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    "Every human is born with more than 100 new mutations."


    Your number is wrong… stop posting via ignorance.


    Let me help you with current estimations…


    “Here we show that in our samples, with an average father’s age of 29.7, the average de novo mutation rate is 1.20×10−8 per nucleotide per generation. Rate of de novo mutations, father


    That is about 70 new mutations per generation.
    diploid number of genes involved is 5.8333x10^9


    5.8333x10^9 x 1.2x10^-8 =70 mutations per generation….
    70 or 100, who cares as it is only an estimate.

    @Ethos what is a generation to you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Ok, so if a fishs DNA mutates into an amphibian then how does a fish reproduce with that amphibian for there's only fish and that one amphibian around not hundreds of them waiting to reproduce. I just cannot wrap my head around when a mutation happens and a new species is evolved just how can that happen when all there were was fish and the one amphibian.
    It is not "a mutation happens and a new species is evolved".
    It takes many, many mutations to evolve a fish species into an amphibian species - far more mutations than would occur over a single generation.

    When a fish gives birth, it gives birth to a fish.
    But that fish will not be exactly like it's parents - it will be slightly different.
    And all the other fish that give birth at the same time will produce fish which are slightly different to their parents.

    What you then have is a whole generation of fish who are not exactly like their parents.
    And when those fish have offspring, those offspring will also be slightly different from their parents.

    If any of those slight differences are beneficial, then the fish with those differences will have more success at producing offspring.
    If any of those beneficial differences involve being able to survive longer in shallow water or being able to absorb some oxygen through their skin, then those differences would be the beginnings of a fish species evolving into an amphibian species.
    Last edited by RedPanda; September 20th, 2014 at 10:33 PM.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Do you think that humans from different generations are unable to have offspring?
    I doubt that you do.
    So, why do you think that animals need to have identical mutations to be able to reproduce?

    Ok, so if a fishs DNA mutates into an amphibian then how does a fish reproduce with that amphibian for there's only fish and that one amphibian around not hundreds of them waiting to reproduce. I just cannot wrap my head around when a mutation happens and a new species is evolved just how can that happen when all there were was fish and the one amphibian.


    You know this may sound silly but in this case the example might be aprapo. The moment there was a transition from 48 to 46 chromosomes the hominid no longer could breed in that population. The telomere fusion was an abrupt disruption of the genome.

    Here is a recorded instance of human chromosome number change…. The man is sterile.

    In this case it would almost certainly result in miscarriage. In fact, the 44 chromosome man's family has a long history of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions.

    His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too. And this would certainly be possible in the future given his family history. The 44 Chromosome Man | Understanding Genetics

    All it takes is a female with the same malady to perpetrate a change in number. Right, thats really going to happen.

    So there is empirical evidence of what I am saying… (sorry knew it all the time).

    It could happen in animals with larger families. There might be a whole bunch of siblings all with the same mutation getting it from their mother or their father line, and they mate within the family and start the new species off like that. You know even the Christians get asked that same question; "If Adam and Eve had kids who were they going to breed with?" So incest must be the only way around it at times.
    But for the next generation it still is line breeding from thereon in, so there must be some other mechanism that allows mating even when the parents have an unequal numbers of chromosomes.
    So it is a good point and I don't know the answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    It could happen in animals with larger families. There might be a whole bunch of siblings all with the same mutation getting it from their mother or their father line, and they mate within the family and start the new species off like that.
    But for the next generation it still is line breeding from thereon in, so there must be some other mechanism that allows mating even when the parents have an unequal numbers of chromosomes.
    So it is a good point and I don't know the answer.
    An animal having an additional chromosome does not exclude reproduction with its 'parent' species.
    For example: Down's Syndrome involves the addition of an extra chromosome.
    Despite the extra chromosome, women with Down's Syndrome are often fertile and are reproductively compatible with non-Down's Syndrome men.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    It could happen in animals with larger families. There might be a whole bunch of siblings all with the same mutation getting it from their mother or their father line, and they mate within the family and start the new species off like that.
    But for the next generation it still is line breeding from thereon in, so there must be some other mechanism that allows mating even when the parents have an unequal numbers of chromosomes.
    So it is a good point and I don't know the answer.
    An animal having an additional chromosome does not exclude reproduction with its 'parent' species.
    For example: Down's Syndrome involves the addition of an extra chromosome.
    Despite the extra chromosome, women with Down's Syndrome are often fertile and are reproductively compatible with non-Down's Syndrome men.
    What do you get with that cross? I have never heard of that ever happening.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    It could happen in animals with larger families. There might be a whole bunch of siblings all with the same mutation getting it from their mother or their father line, and they mate within the family and start the new species off like that.

    It is just another bad assumption from the viewpoint of evolution. Every time there are mutations there is what is called a “U” that represents a percentage of deleterious mutation. A cost of sorts (there is no free lunch in evolution). These deleterious mutations must be worked out of decedents line. This is commonly noted as genome loading. Things like cancer and genetic disease. Example:

    Most evolutionists accept a genome loading of 95% and a U=1.2. Two sexually reproducing humans have to produce approximately (7) offspring to statistically escape all the deleterious effects of mutation given that U.

    Formulation: offspring = 2e^U or 2e^(1.2) = 6.6 offspring

    The absolute truth is there are no beneficial mutations that increase the overall fitness of a organism. That is never observed in any experiment. Not just my opinion.

    You know even the Christians get asked that same question; "If Adam and Eve had kids who were they going to breed with?" So incest must be the only way around it at times.


    Simply Adam and Eves genome was new when these deleterious mutations appeared at the fall. They did not affect our species fitness significantly. We could interbreed, same things the evolutionists claim but there explanation is fraught with error.

    But for the next generation it still is line breeding from thereon in, so there must be some other mechanism that allows mating even when the parents have an unequal numbers of chromosomes.


    All that I can present here is the evidence of cancer, down syndrome and tens of thousands of other maladies when organisms reproduce with defective genomes.

    So it is a good point and I don't know the answer.


    No, your questions are good… sorry for the meager reply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    What do you get with that cross? I have never heard of that ever happening.
    You get a 50:50 chance of either a Down's Syndrome child or a non-Down's Syndrome child.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    The question is how fit are the offspring. Those mutations must be cleansed from the next generation some how. If not now, latter.

    No free lunch in evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    The question is how fit are the offspring. Those mutations must be cleansed from the next generation some how. If not now, latter.

    No free lunch in evolution.
    What do you mean by that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Ethos read this and research it.
    Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Ok, so if a fishs DNA mutates into an amphibian then how does a fish reproduce with that amphibian for there's only fish and that one amphibian around not hundreds of them waiting to reproduce. I just cannot wrap my head around when a mutation happens and a new species is evolved just how can that happen when all there were was fish and the one amphibian.
    I have already explained this to you. Between the fish and the amphibian there is a host of other individuals each of whom is slightly less fish like and more amphibian like than its parents. Eventually we reach a point where it makes more sense for a biologist to call it an amphibian than a fish. But the changes are stepwise and gradual. The dividing point is artificial and is there for convenience. The individuals with mutations that would move their descendants towards being amphibians had no difficulty breeding with their fellows, since the genetic difference between them was tiny.

    Look at this site here. You will see some writing that starts out in red and changes into blue. The red represents the fish, the blue the amphibian. The transition is gradual and the difference between adjacent letters is imperceptible. Look at it, read it, and if you still have uncertainties come back and ask.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Simply Adam and Eves genome was new when these deleterious mutations appeared at the fall. They did not affect our species fitness significantly. We could interbreed, same things the evolutionists claim but there explanation is fraught with error.
    This is a joke right? Please tell me this is a joke.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,154
    Sadly, based on his posting history, I think he actually believes that nonsense...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    The question is how fit are the offspring. Those mutations must be cleansed from the next generation some how. If not now, latter.

    No free lunch in evolution.
    What do you mean by that?
    Evolution is a statistics game. Fitness is a statistical measure of genome integrity (in a population), sorry for the simple definition, I am not a biologist. Mutations that build in a population of organisms over time tend to reduce the “fitness’ of that population. Mutations must exact a cost threw selective pressure. Selective pressure can be strong reducing the unfit component of a population by mortality. Selective pressure can be week or neutral allowing “loading” of the population genome with neutral or deleterious mutations.


    There is a kind of balance struck between mortality and fitness.


    Then along comes a so called beneficial mutation supposedly raising the fitness of that population when it is fixed in that population. (by the way never observed to increase Overall fitness)


    I suppose I could perpetuate a puerile view of mutation and present evolution in terms of an anecdote. But we are talking science here right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    The absolute truth is there are no beneficial mutations that increase the overall fitness of a organism. That is never observed in any experiment. Not just my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1
    You know even the Christians get asked that same question; "If Adam and Eve had kids who were they going to breed with?" So incest must be the only way around it at times.


    Simply Adam and Eves genome was new when these deleterious mutations appeared at the fall. They did not affect our species fitness significantly. We could interbreed, same things the evolutionists claim but there explanation is fraught with error.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1
    But for the next generation it still is line breeding from thereon in, so there must be some other mechanism that allows mating even when the parents have an unequal numbers of chromosomes.


    All that I can present here is the evidence of cancer, down syndrome and tens of thousands of other maladies when organisms reproduce with defective genomes.
    So you believe in Evolution of a sort too, I see! With sudden changes happening at the Fall , that is in the lifetime of "our parents".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    ...
    Then along comes a so called beneficial mutation supposedly raising the fitness of that population when it is fixed in that population. (by the way never observed to increase Overall fitness)
    I suppose I could perpetuate a puerile view of mutation and present evolution in terms of an anecdote. But we are talking science here right.
    Did you follow my posts over on the Aquatic Ape thread. Showing how the humans all have the same serious genetic defect. But we learned how to cope with these defects and have become the species we are. Completely hopeless but we have now dominated and populated the Earth. So that is right you have now understood it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    ...
    Then along comes a so called beneficial mutation supposedly raising the fitness of that population when it is fixed in that population. (by the way never observed to increase Overall fitness)
    I suppose I could perpetuate a puerile view of mutation and present evolution in terms of an anecdote. But we are talking science here right.
    Did you follow my posts over on the Aquatic Ape thread. Showing how the humans all have the same serious genetic defect. But we learned how to cope with these defects and have become the species we are. Completely hopeless but we have now dominated and populated the Earth. So that is right you have now understood it.
    I have visited that thread often but found it intolerant of any scientific critique.

    Please give me a post number....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    So you believe in Evolution of a sort too, I see! With sudden changes happening at the Fall , that is in the lifetime of "our parents”.



    Two ways to know something here… either by speculation or by the actual account and evidence.


    My worldview provides a far better explanation than evolution for our origins.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Moved. GTCethos and Robittybob have dragged this thread down to the pseudoscience level. Not that it was very far above that to begin with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    ...
    Then along comes a so called beneficial mutation supposedly raising the fitness of that population when it is fixed in that population. (by the way never observed to increase Overall fitness)
    I suppose I could perpetuate a puerile view of mutation and present evolution in terms of an anecdote. But we are talking science here right.
    Did you follow my posts over on the Aquatic Ape thread. Showing how the humans all have the same serious genetic defect. But we learned how to cope with these defects and have become the species we are. Completely hopeless but we have now dominated and populated the Earth. So that is right you have now understood it.
    I have visited that thread often but found it intolerant of any scientific critique.

    Please give me a post number....
    Aquatic Apes Again.

    The aquatic ape thread is only a few pages long and if you search for the words "jaw muscles" it would come up quick.
    On that other forum the thread on that topic is 200 odd pages long there is no one single post number. I Googled it today and it is still there but it would take a year or so to go back through it. The most exciting thing for me is that NASA is planning a mission to there to check it out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Moved. GTCethos and Robittybob have dragged this thread down to the pseudoscience level. Not that it was very far above that to begin with.
    How come I get the blame for this?

    I see there is one article that supports the same idea
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...n-history-apes
    But the African chimpanzee is an endangered species, down to perhaps 150,000, while the human population is about to tip seven billion. The implication is that, long ago, the earliest human ancestors also lived in small social groups, and co-operated and competed for the resources of the woodland and the savannah. Why did humans become so different: bipedal, upright, hairless, with limited strength, feeble jaws, bad backs, embarrassingly large heads and brains with a cerebral cortex four times the size of a chimp's?
    Or did hominids become free to develop bigger brains because their jaw muscles began to shrink, allowing the cranium to expand? Did early humans start to develop even bigger brains because they became increasingly efficient endurance runners that could get to a carcass before the hyenas and vultures, and strip away a nourishing meal of meat, fat and marrow? Did humans begin to stand upright by taking to the water – and to nourish bigger brains with high-protein deliveries of fish and shellfish?
    Last edited by Robittybob1; September 21st, 2014 at 03:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Ok, so if a fishs DNA mutates into an amphibian then how does a fish reproduce with that amphibian for there's only fish and that one amphibian around not hundreds of them waiting to reproduce. I just cannot wrap my head around when a mutation happens and a new species is evolved just how can that happen when all there were was fish and the one amphibian.
    I have already explained this to you. Between the fish and the amphibian there is a host of other individuals each of whom is slightly less fish like and more amphibian like than its parents. Eventually we reach a point where it makes more sense for a biologist to call it an amphibian than a fish. But the changes are stepwise and gradual. The dividing point is artificial and is there for convenience. The individuals with mutations that would move their descendants towards being amphibians had no difficulty breeding with their fellows, since the genetic difference between them was tiny.

    Look at this site here. You will see some writing that starts out in red and changes into blue. The red represents the fish, the blue the amphibian. The transition is gradual and the difference between adjacent letters is imperceptible. Look at it, read it, and if you still have uncertainties come back and ask.

    I understand the point which you are trying to make me understand. It seems very understandable when it is told that way. But I still can't get how the changed fish mated together for they couldn't tell which fish were the mutants and which were not. That is not to say it didn't happen but only that it would be rather difficult being a fish.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Moved. GTCethos and Robittybob have dragged this thread down to the pseudoscience level. Not that it was very far above that to begin with.
    I think I've asked a good question whether or not you think so. I've learned quite allot from everyone who has answered me and I thank them all. I just , as yet, can't wrap my head around this evolution question with the data I've read, which was very helpful.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Moved. GTCethos and Robittybob have dragged this thread down to the pseudoscience level. Not that it was very far above that to begin with.
    I think I've asked a good question whether or not you think so. I've learned quite allot from everyone who has answered me and I thank them all. I just , as yet, can't wrap my head around this evolution question with the data I've read, which was very helpful.
    What stops you? What is the first hurdle?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Ok, so if a fishs DNA mutates into an amphibian then how does a fish reproduce with that amphibian for there's only fish and that one amphibian around not hundreds of them waiting to reproduce. I just cannot wrap my head around when a mutation happens and a new species is evolved just how can that happen when all there were was fish and the one amphibian.
    I have already explained this to you. Between the fish and the amphibian there is a host of other individuals each of whom is slightly less fish like and more amphibian like than its parents. Eventually we reach a point where it makes more sense for a biologist to call it an amphibian than a fish. But the changes are stepwise and gradual. The dividing point is artificial and is there for convenience. The individuals with mutations that would move their descendants towards being amphibians had no difficulty breeding with their fellows, since the genetic difference between them was tiny.

    Look at this site here. You will see some writing that starts out in red and changes into blue. The red represents the fish, the blue the amphibian. The transition is gradual and the difference between adjacent letters is imperceptible. Look at it, read it, and if you still have uncertainties come back and ask.

    I understand the point which you are trying to make me understand. It seems very understandable when it is told that way. But I still can't get how the changed fish mated together for they couldn't tell which fish were the mutants and which were not. That is not to say it didn't happen but only that it would be rather difficult being a fish.
    The ones living in the shallows would most likely mate with others in the shallows. So the features that enable them to survive in the shallows are passed onto the next generation of shallow dwelling fish/amphibians.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I understand the point which you are trying to make me understand. It seems very understandable when it is told that way. But I still can't get how the changed fish mated together for they couldn't tell which fish were the mutants and which were not. That is not to say it didn't happen but only that it would be rather difficult being a fish.
    Why would they need to tell which fish were mutants? If a mutant fish mates with a non-mutant fish the offspring have a chance of inheriting the mutation. If the mutation is successful (i.e. the mutant fish are slightly more likely to survive to reproduce) there will now be a lot of fish with that mutation. The mutation will spread through the population. I'm still not clear where your puzzlement lies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
    I understand the point which you are trying to make me understand. It seems very understandable when it is told that way. But I still can't get how the changed fish mated together for they couldn't tell which fish were the mutants and which were not. That is not to say it didn't happen but only that it would be rather difficult being a fish.
    A gene may be inherited by an offspring even when only one parent has a copy of that gene. See this;Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Further, successful breeding can occur between recognized different species.
    Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Mule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Ok, so if a fishs DNA mutates into an amphibian then how does a fish reproduce with that amphibian for there's only fish and that one amphibian around not hundreds of them waiting to reproduce. I just cannot wrap my head around when a mutation happens and a new species is evolved just how can that happen when all there were was fish and the one amphibian.
    I have already explained this to you. Between the fish and the amphibian there is a host of other individuals each of whom is slightly less fish like and more amphibian like than its parents. Eventually we reach a point where it makes more sense for a biologist to call it an amphibian than a fish. But the changes are stepwise and gradual. The dividing point is artificial and is there for convenience. The individuals with mutations that would move their descendants towards being amphibians had no difficulty breeding with their fellows, since the genetic difference between them was tiny.

    Look at this site here. You will see some writing that starts out in red and changes into blue. The red represents the fish, the blue the amphibian. The transition is gradual and the difference between adjacent letters is imperceptible. Look at it, read it, and if you still have uncertainties come back and ask.
    If I'm not mistaken, the dividing point between a breed and a species is the point at which the new organism can no longer produce offspring with the old. IE- A Labrador Retriever (dog) can mate with a Great Pyrenees (dog) and produce a puppy. But a bear can't mate with a Labrador Retriever. (Even though both are caniforms.)

    So long as all the breeds are still in the same large mating pool, they're always going to keep some resemblance toward each other. But once they stop mating together, that's when the new species is free to drift very far away from the old species, and adapt radically different traits.




    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I understand the point which you are trying to make me understand. It seems very understandable when it is told that way. But I still can't get how the changed fish mated together for they couldn't tell which fish were the mutants and which were not. That is not to say it didn't happen but only that it would be rather difficult being a fish.
    Why would they need to tell which fish were mutants? If a mutant fish mates with a non-mutant fish the offspring have a chance of inheriting the mutation. If the mutation is successful (i.e. the mutant fish are slightly more likely to survive to reproduce) there will now be a lot of fish with that mutation. The mutation will spread through the population. I'm still not clear where your puzzlement lies.
    Just to paint a picture, let us suppose that there is a 50% chance, per offspring, that the new trait is inherited in this pairing.

    Our mutant mates with a non-mutant female. She lays 200 eggs. How many fish are there now alive that possess the mutant's new trait?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, the dividing point between a breed and a species is the point at which the new organism can no longer produce offspring with the old. IE- A Labrador Retriever (dog) can mate with a Great Pyrenees (dog) and produce a puppy. But a bear can't mate with a Labrador Retriever. (Even though both are caniforms.)

    So long as all the breeds are still in the same large mating pool, they're always going to keep some resemblance toward each other. But once they stop mating together, that's when the new species is free to drift very far away from the old species, and adapt radically different traits.
    But this remains an arbitrary definition. The cessation of breeding and the cessation of successful breeding are not clear cut absolutes. Consider the issue of ring species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, the dividing point between a breed and a species is the point at which the new organism can no longer produce offspring with the old. IE- A Labrador Retriever (dog) can mate with a Great Pyrenees (dog) and produce a puppy. But a bear can't mate with a Labrador Retriever. (Even though both are caniforms.)

    So long as all the breeds are still in the same large mating pool, they're always going to keep some resemblance toward each other. But once they stop mating together, that's when the new species is free to drift very far away from the old species, and adapt radically different traits.
    But this remains an arbitrary definition. The cessation of breeding and the cessation of successful breeding are not clear cut absolutes. Consider the issue of ring species.
    There certainly would be some species that would never successfully breed. Looking at that link on Ligers some of them were still fertile so there is the potential of a new species developing from these hybrids, if for any reason lions and tigers became extinct. (As long as there are enough ligers around.)
    Last edited by Robittybob1; September 22nd, 2014 at 04:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Going back to this question:

    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution?


    This article introduces the arguments from both sides so it gives you some clues as to what to look up.
    Read your citation… This is very pro creation (see the conclusion of the article). The article is going into my bookmark. Thanks
    These arguments only reinforce my speculations.


    OK… drop everything I said and just say they are what evolutionists claim they are.

    Did HERV-k remain in stasis?

    If it was a stable retrovirus why did it disappear 150K years ago when human population was growing. What changed in the viruses environment to cause it to go extinct?

    In any organism on the planet wouldn’t you expect to see evolution in a retrovirus?

    I did find the following in your citation:

    It is interesting to note that ERVs are different than the retroviral genomes from which they are supposed to have originated. Evolutionists usually explain this away by claiming that the ERV sequences have evolved to the point where they are quite different from their ancestral genomes. Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com

    Question is again how are they stable over 30 million years if they are evolving at all?


    In my opinion: No conclusive evidence has ever been produced that retroviruses or Whales have ever evolved.
    If a species is already very well adapted to its environment, there is no requirement for it to keep changing. Mutations will emerge, but they'll almost always be selected out unless they improve the organism. Well, you can't improve on perfection, so the majority of new mutations won't meet that criteria.

    The thing that keeps the biological world changing is the environment. When it changes, the niches change, and the animals living in those niches must either adapt or die. But if a given niche remains stable for millions of years, there is no pressure on the species living there to change.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Going back to this question:

    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution?


    This article introduces the arguments from both sides so it gives you some clues as to what to look up.
    Read your citation… This is very pro creation (see the conclusion of the article). The article is going into my bookmark. Thanks
    These arguments only reinforce my speculations.


    OK… drop everything I said and just say they are what evolutionists claim they are.

    Did HERV-k remain in stasis?

    If it was a stable retrovirus why did it disappear 150K years ago when human population was growing. What changed in the viruses environment to cause it to go extinct?

    In any organism on the planet wouldn’t you expect to see evolution in a retrovirus?

    I did find the following in your citation:

    It is interesting to note that ERVs are different than the retroviral genomes from which they are supposed to have originated. Evolutionists usually explain this away by claiming that the ERV sequences have evolved to the point where they are quite different from their ancestral genomes. Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com

    Question is again how are they stable over 30 million years if they are evolving at all?


    In my opinion: No conclusive evidence has ever been produced that retroviruses or Whales have ever evolved.
    If a species is already very well adapted to its environment, there is no requirement for it to keep changing. Mutations will emerge, but they'll almost always be selected out unless they improve the organism. Well, you can't improve on perfection, so the majority of new mutations won't meet that criteria.

    The thing that keeps the biological world changing is the environment. When it changes, the niches change, and the animals living in those niches must either adapt or die. But if a given niche remains stable for millions of years, there is no pressure on the species living there to change.
    Has evolution ever produced this ideal of "Perfection"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    National Geographic Magazine did a wonderful article recently on the evolution of whales and addressed this exact question. See the November 2001 Issue, p. 64. There might be some information on the National Geographic web site too
    www.ngs.org

    Basically, the article states that about 65 million years ago, the ancestor of the whales walked on land and was related to the modern-day horses and cows (a group of hooved mammals called ungulates). Recent molecular data has indicated that the whales closest living relative on land is the hippo! It's that surprising! However, they think that hippos and whales began diverging (evolving very differently from one another) about 63 million years ago. A lot can happen in 63 million years.

    In addition to molecular evidence indicating that whales evolved from land-dwelling ancestors, go to your local museum and look at any whale skeleton. You'll see two tiny sets of bones on either side of the back bone near the rear of the animal. These sets of bones are what is left of the whale's hind legs and feet! These sets of bones are called "vestigial hind limbs".


    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...gGq5lmpisD1ruA
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I understand the point which you are trying to make me understand. It seems very understandable when it is told that way. But I still can't get how the changed fish mated together for they couldn't tell which fish were the mutants and which were not. That is not to say it didn't happen but only that it would be rather difficult being a fish.
    Why would they need to tell which fish were mutants? If a mutant fish mates with a non-mutant fish the offspring have a chance of inheriting the mutation. If the mutation is successful (i.e. the mutant fish are slightly more likely to survive to reproduce) there will now be a lot of fish with that mutation. The mutation will spread through the population. I'm still not clear where your puzzlement lies.

    That makes sense to me now, thank you. I thought that mutant fish could only breed with others of their ilk not with any other similar fish without the mutation.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I understand the point which you are trying to make me understand. It seems very understandable when it is told that way. But I still can't get how the changed fish mated together for they couldn't tell which fish were the mutants and which were not. That is not to say it didn't happen but only that it would be rather difficult being a fish.
    Why would they need to tell which fish were mutants? If a mutant fish mates with a non-mutant fish the offspring have a chance of inheriting the mutation. If the mutation is successful (i.e. the mutant fish are slightly more likely to survive to reproduce) there will now be a lot of fish with that mutation. The mutation will spread through the population. I'm still not clear where your puzzlement lies.

    That makes sense to me now, thank you. I thought that mutant fish could only breed with others of their ilk not with any other similar fish without the mutation.
    To really show us you understand it, try and write a statement using your new understanding please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Evolution happens when either mutations or cosmic rays change the DNA in any living thing to make very small changes in the makeup of the living things. This mutation is only enough that it wouldn't , at times, be of any consequence to the species it is affecting therefore breeding could still happen with animals. Although this mutation might not be readily seen it does make changes over time and with breeding of those animals over time more mutations do occur and hence more changes.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Evolution happens when either mutations or cosmic rays change the DNA in any living thing to make very small changes in the makeup of the living things. This mutation is only enough that it wouldn't , at times, be of any consequence to the species it is affecting therefore breeding could still happen with animals. Although this mutation might not be readily seen it does make changes over time and with breeding of those animals over time more mutations do occur and hence more changes.
    I wouldn't class myself as an expert but that is a reasonable answer. The one thing I'd make clear is that not all mutations are of the level that allows reproduction to occur, as some would prohibit fertilization and others lethal to the resulting embryo or neonate.
    So now you ought to incorporate the above idea with the aspect of selection advantage and adaptation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Has evolution ever produced this ideal of "Perfection"?

    Perfect adaptation is just like any other efficiency problem. You never reach 100%, but as you get closer and closer, your progress toward 100% can be expected to get slower and slower.

    So we might expect smaller and smaller refinements. But we would expect bigger changes when the species is far from 100% efficient for their environment.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 11th, 2014, 03:15 AM
  2. Change the announcers every New Years instead of always the same one
    By cosmictraveler in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2013, 02:30 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 12th, 2012, 09:20 PM
  4. Dna polimerase types of DNA replication
    By SkyDreamer in forum Biology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2008, 11:59 AM
  5. Climate change - we've got 10 years
    By BSG CORP in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: February 26th, 2008, 03:39 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •