rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 10:14 pm
Anonymouse wrote:
I don't know, and neither do you. To claim to know is what we call arrogance. Approximation is not the equivalent of truth.


Do you think it's over a hundred million years old, or under?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 10:47 pm
Anonymouse wrote:
farmerman wrote:
... and hes got a bigger pack a wolves than you . SAFE BET>


I am not familiar with the intraforum politics and fraternzing that goes on, nor does his or anyone else's wolf pack interest me. Until then, all bets are off.


Figure its only fair to fill you in - somewhat, anyhow; I actually do "Dance with Wolves" - not only am I an affiliate of The National Wildlife Foundation Wolf Recovery Program, I also participate actively in Dog, Wolf and Wolf/Dog Hybrid Rescue - there really is a wolfpack here at Timberland.

Here are some of my furry freinds:

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/618/Wolf_1_2_1_1.th.jpg
Ghost

http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/9724/timberwolfminniseta8tt.th.jpg
Lucy

http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/12/mine8wu.th.jpg
Jake

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2210/img00210ip.th.jpg
Frank

A little more info on the pups Here and Here, and a bunch more scattered around here on various forums.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 11:38 pm
Does Frank have a last name? He looks familiar.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 05:00 am
Setanta wrote:
It is so ludicrous to make contentions about what "Noah's children" did or did not do. The flood stories is one of the most embarrassingly obvious of the bobble's examples of plagiarism . . .


Actually the flood story of Noah has some remarkably unique elements compared to it's counterparts.

The monotheism especially... The symbology of animals and the prohibition of their worship...

I find it also interesting that disaster is attributed to God yet then after the definition of God becomes somehow more defined.

The Gilgamesh story ends in an pantheon of many "Gods" appearing... and, men/women being worshiped "as god". This seems to be in total stark contrast to the Hebrews story of Noah... So it seems less likely to be plagiarized when it does have a total opposite "religion" associated with it.

What is rather interesting is that the religion (monotheism) associated with Noah is the prevalent religion of many millions of people today... not the religion of the Gilgamesh story which is nearly, non existent...

That (monotheism) in itself was, "the great flood"...
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 07:44 am
timberlandko wrote:
Anonymouse wrote:
farmerman wrote:
... and hes got a bigger pack a wolves than you . SAFE BET>


I am not familiar with the intraforum politics and fraternzing that goes on, nor does his or anyone else's wolf pack interest me. Until then, all bets are off.


Figure its only fair to fill you in - somewhat, anyhow; I actually do "Dance with Wolves" - not only am I an affiliate of The National Wildlife Foundation Wolf Recovery Program, I also participate actively in Dog, Wolf and Wolf/Dog Hybrid Rescue - there really is a wolfpack here at Timberland.


At least we know the wolves are in good hands.
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 07:44 am
rosborne979 wrote:
Anonymouse wrote:
I don't know, and neither do you. To claim to know is what we call arrogance. Approximation is not the equivalent of truth.


Do you think it's over a hundred million years old, or under?


If it's a year above or below, it doesn't really matter does it?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 08:56 am
Anonymouse wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Anonymouse wrote:
I don't know, and neither do you. To claim to know is what we call arrogance. Approximation is not the equivalent of truth.


Do you think it's over a hundred million years old, or under?


If it's a year above or below, it doesn't really matter does it?


Sure it does. Your opinion matters. Why do you think I asked.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 11:29 am
Anonymouse wrote:
At least we know the wolves are in good hands.


Thank you sir - I do what I can - sorta my way of giving back to the planet, and repaying pups for all they've done for me. We have horses here too, but that's mostly Mrs Timber's idea; I grew up around horses - working horses - and I figure the only thing dumber than a horse is folks who enjoy taking care of 'em for fun. And worse than that are folks who have 'em and don't take care of 'em. For all they've done for humankind, horses sure have gotten a real bad deal throughout history.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 01:21 pm
timber-

I agree with you there.3 of the best specimens have died in their prime here in the last few months either on the racecourse or the training gallops.One of them was a 3 times Cleltenham Gold Cup winner.Our record with these brave and beautiful creatures is woeful.

(What happened on the other timber?)
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 09:58 am
timberlandko wrote:
Anonymouse wrote:
At least we know the wolves are in good hands.


Thank you sir - I do what I can - sorta my way of giving back to the planet, and repaying pups for all they've done for me. We have horses here too, but that's mostly Mrs Timber's idea; I grew up around horses - working horses - and I figure the only thing dumber than a horse is folks who enjoy taking care of 'em for fun. And worse than that are folks who have 'em and don't take care of 'em. For all they've done for humankind, horses sure have gotten a real bad deal throughout history.


Oh yay! What wonderful specimens of such a wonderful species. Yet, I can't help but wonder... Why exactly was Jake snarling at the camera?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 10:58 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Why exactly was Jake snarling at the camera?

He was playing; if you look at the pic, you'll notice his split gaze (canids can do that); one eye is looking at the camera (really the human behind the camera); the other is directed up and picture-left; he's looking at a toy being held out of camera view, a piece of rope, getting ready to lunge for it. "Get the rope from dad" is an all-round favorite game among The Puppies.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 11:09 am
Timberland,
Quote:
The correct metaphor for the Darwinian process is not that of a First World engineer, but that of the Third World auto mechanic who will get your car running again, but only if parts already lying around can be used for the repair.


So, evolution depends on the random mutations... the third world mechanic gets random parts, and the functional ones are used in the car? Am I understanding this correctly?

If this is a good metaphor, could we trace the building of the car? ...in evolutionary terms of course? Where would we start off?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 11:40 am
thunder_runner32 wrote:
If this is a good metaphor, could we trace the building of the car? ...in evolutionary terms of course? Where would we start off?


This analogy would not work. Cars are obviously man-made. Nature does not appear to be man-made.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 11:49 am
The analogy came from an evolutionist article....
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 01:44 pm
Just to carry the automotive analogy a bit further (though I'm not altogether good with the "First World/Third World" play there), one might best think of Darwin's original work as corresponding to that of Karl Benz, whereas today the state of evolutionary science corresponds more closely with the work coming out of the leading-edge motorsports movers-and-shakers. Another apt engineering comparison might be Otto Lilienthal's work and the current state of space exploration.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 11:20 pm
Market forces helped more fuel efficient and cheaper cars. The market forces push CEOs who in turn direct the engineers. The engineers are the DNA manipulators.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 11:46 am
Quote:
(though I'm not altogether good with the "First World/Third World" play there)


I think that it was a personification of evolution; just like the third world (some poor country with limited resources) mechanic must utilize the pieces that he is given.

Quote:
Market forces helped more fuel efficient and cheaper cars. The market forces push CEOs who in turn direct the engineers. The engineers are the DNA manipulators.


Market forces=natural selection?
CEOs=organisms?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 08:07 pm
Interesting article. I'd be fascinated to hear point of view from any of our evolutionists on board.

Quote:


Same mutation causes different fish to shed scales[/u][/i]


Disparate populations of the stickleback family can trace their loss of armor to the same gene.........


Stanford, 3/30/2005 -- After decades of laboratory work studying how animals evolve, researchers sometimes need to put on the hip waders, pull out the fishing net and go learn how their theory compares to the real world. According to a School of Medicine study published Friday in Science, Mother Nature is more predictable than lab experiments suggest.

In a diverse group of fish called sticklebacks, nature took advantage of the same genetic trick time and again to allow freshwater species to shed their burdensome body armor and transform into a lighter, spryer fish. This is among the first times scientists have shown that the same genetic change is responsible for an evolutionary adaptation in disparate populations.

"Almost every time the stickleback evolves in fresh water it loses the armor," said David Kingsley, PhD, professor of developmental biology and lead author of the study. "Although the trait evolved many times all over the world, nature uses the same gene each time."

Sticklebacks evolved from a relatively uniform marine population into today's broad spectrum of shapes and sizes when the last Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago. Because ocean fish quickly evolved into such distinct populations when they colonized new freshwater lakes and streams, they are an ideal model for understanding how animals adapt to their unique environments.

The recent work carries a few surprises. Kingsley said that the gene in question, called Eda, is an old friend to laboratory researchers who have found that mutations in the same gene in mice cause altered hair patterns. However, in mice similar alterations can also be created by defects in any one of three different genes. "Based on the mouse work you'd predict we would find mutations in any of the three genes in sticklebacks," said Kingsley, who is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. "That's not what we see."

Instead, the group found the exact same genetic change in each of the 15 freshwater sticklebacks they studied, including one local species the group collected from a stream near Fresno. Perhaps mutations in the two other genes cause problems for the fish in addition to reducing the number of armor plates, Kingsley said.

Most of these fish evolved independently from marine ancestors that are covered head to hind fin in body armor. Although it's not clear why losing the armor is a benefit to freshwater fish, Kingsley noted that the unarmored fish are lighter and faster than their more burdened marine cousins.

In an effort to learn more about how the armor trait evolves so quickly, Kingsley and his colleagues sequenced that genetic region in a large number of marine fish, all of which had a complete set of armor plates. A small number of these fish had one copy of the Eda gene that contained the mutation in question.

It's likely that when a pocket of sticklebacks got isolated, at least a few of those fish already carried the mutated copy of the Eda gene. When those fish bred, some gave rise to offspring with two copies of the mutation and no (or reduced) body armor. In a freshwater habitat those fish prospered and populated the stream or lake with similarly armorless offspring.

Kingsley said this work is part of a larger study to understand how evolution generates major morphological and physiological changes. "We want to learn how evolution works on a large scale," he said. His group previously found that several stickleback species lacking hind fins all shared an alteration in how a gene was turned on and off.

In both studies evolution turned to the same genetic switch to work a visible change in the fish. However, in the fin study the group wasn't able to pinpoint the exact genetic alteration.

The group continues to wade out into nature, collecting additional stickleback species from around the world that can reveal whether particular genes are always reused when the animals adapt to new conditions, or if evolution has other tricks up its sleeve to push organisms towards an optimal form for their environment.

Other Stanford researchers who participated in the study include graduate students Pamela Colosimo, PhD, first author on the study, and Kim Hosemann; technician Sarita Balabhadra; undergraduate Guadalupe Villarreal Jr.; technical managers at the Stanford Human Genome Center Mark Dickson, Jane Grimwood and Jeremy Schmutz; and Richard Myers, PhD, professor of genetics.

Original Article: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/march30/med-fish-033005.html
from http://urwatch.com/Science--Animal%20&%20Insects_files/Animal-March01-31--05.htm
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 08:37 pm
I would say that article, along with the others accompanying it on that University Research Watch - dot -com page, serves quite handsomely to confirm that the evidence for the standard evolution model is incontravertable, even given that bits and pieces of some of its particular mechanics are yet not fully understood. That's the point of research - to discover the answers to questions, not to manufacture them. And that too precisely is why there is no legitimate supportive research documentation for the ID-iot proposition; central to that proposition is the ultimate manufactured answer, which in and of itself precludes legitimate research.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 08:38 pm
I never cease to be impressed at how economic the various expressions of genes are. Once in the genome, for eg, the Hox gene can be responsible for multiple morpholigical features. probably the same for whatever gene this one is.

What do the anti-evolutionists have to say?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 321
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 12:25:58