1
   

Evolution?

 
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 11:46 am
parados wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
parados wrote:
2. DNA changes led to the changes in the stickleback fish. Their environment changed making the DNA changes advantageous.


How did you reach this conclusion?


Did you read the link?

Quote:
The researchers were able to determine the DNA sequence of the Pitx1 gene in marine fish with a normal hindfin and in freshwater fish with hindfin reduction. Although no changes were seen in the portions of the gene that code for the Pitx1 protein, comparative expression studies showed that the gene was no longer expressed properly at some locations in the freshwater fish, including the place where hindfins would normally develop.


Many times. Are you suggesting that the unusual DNA alterations were a coincidence to the stickleback's environmental/survivability needs?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 01:15 pm
From the article you said you read several times..
Quote:
"We wanted examples that had evolved in nature and had been subject to whatever constraints of viability and fitness that any organism that has evolved in the wild would have."
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:24 am
parados wrote:
From the article you said you read several times..
Quote:
"We wanted examples that had evolved in nature and had been subject to whatever constraints of viability and fitness that any organism that has evolved in the wild would have."


Your insertion does not answer the question.

"Are you suggesting that the unusual DNA alterations were a coincidence to the stickleback's environmental/survivability needs?"
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 07:44 am
baddog1 wrote:
parados wrote:
From the article you said you read several times..
Quote:
"We wanted examples that had evolved in nature and had been subject to whatever constraints of viability and fitness that any organism that has evolved in the wild would have."


Your insertion does not answer the question.

"Are you suggesting that the unusual DNA alterations were a coincidence to the stickleback's environmental/survivability needs?"

I never "suggested" anything. I used the article. Why would I rely on my "suggestion" when I have a source?

Are you "suggesting" that you don't have any reading comprehension?
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 08:15 am
parados wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
parados wrote:
From the article you said you read several times..
Quote:
"We wanted examples that had evolved in nature and had been subject to whatever constraints of viability and fitness that any organism that has evolved in the wild would have."


Your insertion does not answer the question.

"Are you suggesting that the unusual DNA alterations were a coincidence to the stickleback's environmental/survivability needs?"

I never "suggested" anything. I used the article. Why would I rely on my "suggestion" when I have a source?

Are you "suggesting" that you don't have any reading comprehension?


Stop being defensive parados. No need for those emotions here. I am trying to understand your position. If that's uncomfortable to you, just say so and move on.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 08:46 am
baddog1 wrote:


Stop being defensive parados. No need for those emotions here. I am trying to understand your position. If that's uncomfortable to you, just say so and move on.


My position is the same it has always been as is yours it seems.

You asked how I reached my "conclusion". I quoted the article which reached that conclusion. Rather than accepting the article as my source you continued to ask silly questions then accuse me of being defensive. I think you misinterpreted my frustration of trying to explain something to a supposed adult that thinks like a 2 year old with being defensive.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 12:52 pm
parados wrote:
baddog1 wrote:


Stop being defensive parados. No need for those emotions here. I am trying to understand your position. If that's uncomfortable to you, just say so and move on.


My position is the same it has always been as is yours it seems.

You asked how I reached my "conclusion". I quoted the article which reached that conclusion. Rather than accepting the article as my source you continued to ask silly questions then accuse me of being defensive. I think you misinterpreted my frustration of trying to explain something to a supposed adult that thinks like a 2 year old with being defensive.


I guess that I misinterpreted your defensiveness and should have realized it as simple arrogance or ignorance, not sure which. Your linked "conclusion" is not as conclusive as you imply - as the author notes. Despite my level of frustration with you for being inconclusive and therefore asking for clarification instead of forming a ridiculous assertion - your arrogance (ignorance?) clearly got in the way of any reasonable communication. I suspect this same attitude also gets in the way of reasonable education for you as well.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 03:07 pm
baddog1 wrote:
parados wrote:
baddog1 wrote:


Stop being defensive parados. No need for those emotions here. I am trying to understand your position. If that's uncomfortable to you, just say so and move on.


My position is the same it has always been as is yours it seems.

You asked how I reached my "conclusion". I quoted the article which reached that conclusion. Rather than accepting the article as my source you continued to ask silly questions then accuse me of being defensive. I think you misinterpreted my frustration of trying to explain something to a supposed adult that thinks like a 2 year old with being defensive.


I guess that I misinterpreted your defensiveness and should have realized it as simple arrogance or ignorance, not sure which. Your linked "conclusion" is not as conclusive as you imply - as the author notes.
Where does he note this? Or should we just take it as your suggestion?


Quote:
Despite my level of frustration with you for being inconclusive and therefore asking for clarification instead of forming a ridiculous assertion - your arrogance (ignorance?) clearly got in the way of any reasonable communication. I suspect this same attitude also gets in the way of reasonable education for you as well.
Lovely to see you getting defensive.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 07:53 am
parados wrote:
Where does he note this?...


Quote:
" Pitx1 is actually involved in a number of different processes, including pituitary development and craniofacial development," said Kingsley. "So, any changes in the protein itself would affect all of those structures. We think


Quote:
Further research will focus on identifying the specific DNA alterations responsible for causing changes in the regulation of Pitx1. This kind of analysis will be particularly challenging, Kingsley said, because the nature and function of these genetic regulatory regions is not well understood in either fish or other animals. However, knowing that such regions may be the basis for major evolutionary change adds new impetus to characterizing them more fully, and studying how they have changed in animals that have adapted to a range of different environments.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 08:59 am
I see. And where is your quote from the article that says the physical changes didn't come about because of changes in the DNA?

Not knowing what the specifics are is not the same thing as saying the DNA didn't change. Not knowing everything controllled by the gene where the DNA changed is not the same thing as saying the DNA didn't change.

Pulling words out of a sentence without including the ENTIRE sentence doesn't suddenly make them reach the conclusion that the physical changes may not have been caused by DNA changes. You are doing nothing but playing word games bd. And rather poor word games at that.
0 Replies
 
blindsided
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 03:55 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
blindsided wrote:
Evolution isn't real and has never been proven otherwise.


You don't read much, do you.


What if I do not read? I am still smarter than you. At least I know when to use a question mark.

Theory of evolution:
1.) Random mutation of desirable attributes.
2.) Survival of the fittest.
3.) Leads to creation of new species. ( no evidence after over 150 years of looking)

Many complex cells, like the flagellum, are made up of 30-40 complex protein parts. The absence of any one of the protein parts would make the flagellum useless. It has been tested and demonstrated by Michael Behe that it is mathematically impossible for all 30 parts of the flagellum to have been brought together by "numerous, successive, and slight modifications of natural selection." Darwin himself even mentioned the difficulty of explaining the eye in his book The Origin Of Species saying he could not do it.

Survival of the fittest obviously isn't viable since morons like you still survive.

The fossil record shows vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out of no where, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and disappearing with a blink of an eye. With over a quarter of a million fossil species found, the fossil record still does not show a finely graduated chain of slow progressive evolution. If mutations are random like Darwinism claims, then there should be an infinite variety of transitional animals with small mutations that eventually led to a magnificent new attribute like a wing or lung. We don't have fossils connecting the extinct of the extant, what fossil records show is a sudden abundance of all manner of animals, modest change, and then a sudden and total extinction. Dinosaurs appeared and lived for 150million years and then disappeared only to be quickly replaced with mammals. You also never find mutations that turned out to be clunkers, like a cat with a tail on it's face. If mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there would be a huge number that are undesirable. Otherwise, mutations are not random, proving intelligent design.
0 Replies
 
fungotheclown
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 04:43 pm
Actually, the flagellum is a derivation of a much simpler protien pump; hence, an intermediate step.

We have found intermediate examples of eye development, in the form of light sensitive organs that merely detect light and dark.

Quote:
What if I do not read? I am still smarter than you.


I would have to disagree on this one, but regardless, intelligence is besides the point. You are commenting on a complex technical subject that you have shown that you have no experience or education in. We have no reason to respect your opinion on this subject than we do to respect the opinion of a pediatrician on rocket engine design. You don't know what you're talking about.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 05:12 pm
blindsided
Quote:
What if I do not read?


Then you are what you appear to be.

Dr Behe was handed his lunch in several seminars, symposia, and the Dover ID trial. His flagella arguments were dispatched by Ken Miller like a pig to slaughter. Didnt you get the memo that the "flagellum arguments are dead"?, Ditto the compound eye, also the protein cascade in blood clotting, as well as the Hox 2 genes .

Not been a good millenium for the IDers (and their supplicants)

I consider myself fairly well read on the subject of fossils and I find your opinion quite ignorant of whats out there.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 06:33 pm
I would BM this if I knew how to do it.
0 Replies
 
blindsided
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2008 02:34 pm
typical brainwashed biology teacher response
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2008 02:36 pm
blindsided wrote:
typical brainwashed biology teacher response


This from the person that had the audacity to attack others for their correct use of punctuation.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2008 05:49 pm
blindheaded
Quote:
typical brainwashed biology teacher response
. Oh and you also forgot aetheist, Gomer. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 09:13:48