Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Quote:

... and what if the taxonomy has been done on the grounds of classification of the DNA sequences and inheritance mechanics, rather than on accidental claws raised on the belly.

Pss. If you would be reading rther than pontificating youd see that taxonomy hs been done using a combined method of morphology AND genetics.

Is this news to you? That's how the Hirax was shown to be an ancestral relative of the elephant.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

If you would be reading rther than pontificating youd see that taxonomy hs been done using a combined method of morphology AND genetics.

... and if you are remembering what you have said in the previous posts, for example - that no DNA can be verified more than 500 000 years ago - how exactly do you make taxonomy based on 'morphology AND genetics':
     1. photosynthesis starts - 3.5 billion years ago (which supposes some green algae and primitive plants)
     2. First vertebrate land animals - 380 mya
     3. The apperance of the dinosaurs - 230 mya
     4. First hominids - 2 mya
Pay attention that all of these are greater than the point of time 500 000 which you said that is critically fatal for the establishment (extraction, or detection, or whatever) of DNA.
- How exactly have you classified the dinos on the grounds of the DNA when you have no methods to establish DNA with fossil species at that age?
BTW, I have not forgotten - where are your evidences about:
- epigenetic inheritance;
- parental effects;
- ecological inheritance;
- cultural inheritance (learned from the flock);
- the interacting mechanisms of the various types of inheritance ... if such types of inheritance exist at all.
You may use contemporary samples of species (after you have lost the DNA in time).

2 Replies

@Herald,

I would think that the conclusion that dicosaur speciationhs not relied upon genetics is correct (Did you actually think that you are making some astounding point?)
The entire field of Evolution/Development (Evo/Devo) has used the comination of morphology nd genetics from living species to project linneages backward in time via using genomes as a "biological clock"). Please do some more reading before trying to discuss stuff that's old news.

s far a epigenetics, Im ure the recent "publications" of the Discovery Institute have presupposed an ID approach based on ome cockamaymee data.
Read a paper titled The Dynamics of DNA methylation? in recent Human and Great Ape Evolution(2012), PLOS Genetics.

Its a good account of the use of histone and methylation modifications ON the genomes of various great ape species. The assertion of histone modifications assert themselves differently within several species of great apes and it appears that these can be followed asan evolutionary "marker"

I think ell hve to ait as the entire area of epigenetic factors are studied objectively (ID places are starting thir reviews of data with a given worldview in tow). Science should be free to go wherever funding can carry it. Epigenetics, at worst, raises a spectre of rampant Lamarkianism if it can be shown that environmental effects are long lasting. (It appears that, from some cases of human population dynamics wherein they use STR(short tandem repeat alleles) markers s an environmental locator, the effect of environmental stresses does have a stability within the genome. Could these STRs be initited by epigenetic effects on methylation or histone mods?

I say we let the work continue and then we read about it. Im not jumping to any positions of yelling out "See?"

Quote:

How exactly have you classified the dinos on the grounds of the DNA when you have no methods to establish DNA with fossil species at that age?

Im sorry, youll have to point out where I said such a stupid thing? Ive been on record throughout A2K to tell the vaunted "Genomics firt" crowd that weve never found any DNA from any dinosaur ven though the "Soft tissue" sowed some examples of some levorotatory proteins

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

parental effects;
- ecological inheritance;
- cultural inheritance (learned from the flock

Youre conflating several things here . Most of which are seen on the STR's I previously spoke of..

STRs and SSR's are part pf a larger class of repeat alleles called Variable Number Tandems"
Heres a stub on it for your (and everyone elses) reading pleasure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_number_tandem_repeat

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Please do some more reading before trying to discuss stuff that's old news.

Quote:

At certain times during development (the timing varies among species), specialized cellular machinery scours the genome and erases its epigenetic tags in order to return the cells to a genetic "blank slate." Yet, for a small minority of genes, epigenetic tags make it through this process and pass unchanged from parent to offspring.

I was asking how does the cellular machinery 'understand' which epigenetic tags to erase and which to leave to overcome the reprogramming barrier. Anyway.

farmerman wrote:

I think ell hve to ait as the entire area of epigenetic factors are studied objectively.

What do you mean by 'objectively'? The epigenetic tags (if inheritable) are actually in favor of the evolution theory.

farmerman wrote:

... weve never found any DNA from any dinosaur ven though the "Soft tissue" sowed some examples of some levorotatory proteins

Exactly ... but this does not impede you from making taxonomy of the dinos and to claim that the taxonomy is based on 'morphology AND genetics'.
Actually you may have some DNA from the dino causins - the Varan de Komodo, the Alligators, some Sea Turtles, etc.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

epigenetic tags (if inheritable) are actually in favor of the evolution theory.

Is it Lamarkin, is it Lysenkoist, Is it Darwinian, is it Neo Darwinian?

riddle me that

Quote:

Exactly ... but this does not impede you from making taxonomy of the dinos and to claim that the taxonomy is based on 'morphology AND genetics'.
Actually you may have some DNA from the dino causins - the Varan de Komodo, the Alligators, some Sea Turtles, etc.

You have a really annoying habit of trying to assault others with YOURE words. As I said, I NEVER claimed that dinos were classified by both genetics and morphology. In fact, Id been taking several other posters whod claimed that science has found Dino DNA , to task.

Quote:

.
Actually you may have some DNA from the dino causins - the Varan de Komodo, the Alligators, some Sea Turtles, etc.

And you know this how?? Youre doing what you've accuse me of. So youre arranging all diapsids as being "cousins" what evidence do you present that is genetic? Its ALL based on morphology or as you've said (Some spines in the skin".

Youre all over the place. Are you trying to make a point or do you just want to try to sound intelligent? .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Pss. If you would be reading rather than pontificating youd see that taxonomy has been done using a combined method of morphology AND genetics.

Is this news to you? That's how the Hyrax was shown to be an ancestral relative of the elephant.

s you see, heres exactly what I said. I nowhere had claimed anything about dinosaur DNA. In fct, my only example was a small extant rabbit like creature that, genetically, is related to elephants. THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT. Youd been so busy trying to swing all over the place that you've failed to see how taxonomy has gone to evo/devo mode where genetics and morphology share the load (Where possible). NOONE has said that weve raise dino DNA and I think you know that and youre just trying to make some obscure point.

ID has gradually lost horribly as anything to be considered " seriously scientific" and has shrunk back into the corner with other myths and monster stories.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

When I visited Cape Town some decades ago, we saw some Dassies that we were told are related to the elephant.

http://www.capetownmagazine.com/wildlife-nature/dassies-relation-to-elephant-finally-makes-sense/119_22_11321

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

When I visited Cape Town some decades ago, we saw some Dassies that we were told are related to the elephant.

wow!!! They can literally make you believe anything!

an elephant??

wow

why the ******* hell is that proof and for what????????????????????????????????????????

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Q, you're pretty dumb, aren't you? But, I repeat myself. Mr. Green

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Q, you're pretty dumb, aren't you? But, I repeat myself

Oh sure, but AGAIN you failed to answer the question.

Too difficult I guess?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I nowhere had claimed anything about dinosaur DNA.

At Post No. 5,718,493 FM wrote:

I think you are being blinded by now accepting only what DNA represents, especially since no DNA could possibly be extracted from fossils older than say 500000 years

At Post No.5,720,205 FM wrote:

Pss. If you would be reading rther than pontificating youd see that taxonomy hs been done using a combined method of morphology AND genetics.

Why don't you simply confess that you have not used any DNA to construct the taxonomy of the Green Algae, Pterodactyls, and Pteranodons, etc.? Why don't you say that your taxonomy is not based on 'AND genetics', but only on morphology ... and on nothing else.
BTW the claws (leg stubs, if they are that at all) of the Pteranodon are on the wings, and not on the belly. How have that claws went onto the wings, if they originate from the legs of a reptile?

2 Replies

@Herald,

You really don't get it do you? Are you that dim that you cannot understand?
We do taxonomy using genetics where genetics and porphology is available

We did taxonomy vi morphology ALONE where we have no DNA (due to time)
You weren't smart enough to note that my use of 500K years did NOT rely upon DNA alone . Ive included osteocalcin along with ancient DNA. In humans, the oldest DNA sequencing that's been done is slightly over 100K years and it took almost 7 years to get it right.

Maybe my spelling errors and typos have you confused. AS I said, nowhere did I say that I RELY upon DNA for ancient fossil taxonomy. (I rarely do taxonomy anyway, I have 3 paleontologists that work with me) EVEN with morphology firmly in hand, science has been changing its taxonomic mind quite frequently. (Think about archaeopteryx-It was a bird, then a reptile, then a bird again ,nd now its once again, a reptile (but with feathers)

I hope you are having a fine time trying to find something to link your ID to. So far I see you've got not much going for you, other than trying to cast doubts on what Ive said.
You don't seem to have many ideas of your own do you. (OUTSIDE OF SAYING THAT ID makes sense to you)

In that way youre kinda like the Quahog who only sends Emoticons or short insults based on his incredulity at all science.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I SAID, IN 2 SEPARATE POSTS

Quote:

In one post FM said
I think you are being blinded by now accepting only what DNA represents, especially since no DNA could possibly be extracted from fossils older than say 500000 years

At Post No.5,720,205 FM wrote:

Pss. If you would be reading rther than pontificating youd see that taxonomy hs been done using a combined method of morphology AND genetics.

I think your error is that you joined the two posts. Actually, in between, qe were talking about LIVING SPECIES and not only fossils. Maybe that'd help your inability tounerstnd

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You really don't get it do you? Are you that dim that you cannot understand?

What I got is more than enough. You claim that the humans originate 2 may, and you have DNA not more than 500 000 ya and if we are result of such complex transformations & stages in our development in becoming humans from monkeys (and not from mice, for example, to which our DNA is much closer), why do we all (without any exception) originate from one single female individual from Africa - where have all that other 'stages in the development of humans' gone?
I wonder why I am asking you, as you cannot even explain why have the Neanthertals become extinct? ... and have the Dinos been more intelligent than us, as they managed to survive here down on the very same planet for over 160 mya? Aha, you have no DNA and you cannot assess intelligence by morphology, not to speak that you don't recognize the existence of intelligence in general.

farmerman wrote:

We do taxonomy using genetics where genetics and porphology is available.

Yes, you pour concrete where it is more easy - on the slab rather than in the foundations. The foundations may remain on the quicksands ... where they have always been.

farmerman wrote:

You weren't smart enough to note that my use of 500K years did NOT rely upon DNA alone.

Honestly speaking - I was not. I don't even know what is your 'use of 500K years' supposed to mean, let alone to interpret what is 'rely upon'.

farmerman wrote:

I hope you are having a fine time trying to find something to link your ID to.

I am not linking any ID. I linked one of your statements to another of your statements that is in absolute contradiction, which means that at least one of the two is false (if not both).

farmerman wrote:

So far I see you've got not much going for you, other than trying to cast doubts on what Ive said.

Why don't you simply confess that you and your colleagues evolutionists and atheists and ID deniers have not classified anything since 1753 - since the Species Plantarium and Systema Naturae, published by the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus. What DNA are you talking about - the use of the DNA is from the 1950s?
BTW you don't have any single valid and verifiable evidence that DNA has performed the hereditary complex (have conveyed the functioning of the living organisms, growing, and reproduction) throughout the whole 4 billion-year history of life on Earth, and that this function has not been performed in the earliest forms by RNA or something else.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Ive never been a" DNA is everything " fan. Ive been always more leaning to the evidence that says DNA is the "bookkeeping of evolution" Speciation can occur without any DNA mods or mutes.

Mice certainly are Not closer to us than primates in DNA complement. We have the entire chromosomal complement that chimps have and two of theirs are fused into chromosome 2 of humans with the telomeres and centromeres retained.

Saying that no one has "classified anything" since Linneaus is silly. Since Linnaeus, weve discovered and classified over 2 million new species of animals.
Workers find and catalog new species of insects and ocean creatures EVERY WEEK.

( I went to a biology site to find the following) In 2010 alone approximately 15380 new species of animals were discovered and classified (3% were chordata and , of those 30% were mammals)
I have no idea where you get this Quahog -like idea that only old data ismeaningful.

You seem to be trying to drag up unrelated factoids from your Google adventures and you've yet to make a cohesive point.

If you didn't want to understand that your bifurcation of those two statements about use of DNA and morphology was about "living animals" Its not my fault because you brought up the original point and then sort of abandoned it as I got too close for your ID mentality to wish to absorb.

If you wish to learn more about Neanderthal genomics, look for the page run by Dr Svante Paabo of the Planck Institute. He and some dude from Penn State are the ranking experts on Neanderthal genomes since they did it all since 1998.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Yes, an elephant. From Wiki.

Quote:

Rock hyrax
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rock hyrax[1]
Procavia-capensis-Posing.JPG
Conservation status

Least Concern (IUCN 3.1)[2]
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Hyracoidea
Family: Procaviidae
Genus: Procavia
Storr, 1780
Species: P. capensis
Binomial name
Procavia capensis
(Pallas, 1766)
Rock Hyrax area.png
Rock hyrax range
The rock hyrax or rock badger (Procavia capensis; also called the Cape hyrax) is one of the four living species of the order Hyracoidea, and the only living species in the genus Procavia. Like all hyraxes, it is a medium-sized (~4 kg) terrestrial mammal, superficially resembling a guinea pig with short ears and tail. The closest living relatives to hyraxes are the modern-day elephants and sirenians. The rock hyrax is found across Africa and the Middle East, in habitats with rock crevices in which to escape from predators. Hyraxes typically live in groups of 10–80 animals, and forage as a group. They have been reported to use sentries: one or more animals take up position on a vantage point and issue alarm calls on the approach of predators.

Where did you get your education, and where did you learn not to accept facts determined by scientific means?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I put Quahog on ignore myself cause hes fuckin insane. Hes been going on about allkinds of errors in science so now it appears hes got it in for genetics too.

He'll go far in the world. Very Happy

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quhog reminds me of a line from the book entitled"This is the greatest Book I ever Wrote and it STill Sucks"

"I put a Don't in front of all the stuff in my To Do list"

Hes just a contrarian for absolutely no good reasons. He doesn't even manage to get it right.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Not even once! A sad case of ignorance personified.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know