privatization was space-x yada yada
Hold on Kim, your first hunch was correct. To think of all the species you mentioned (and more), factor in the eco-systems spread far and wide, and then assume a theory that utilizes only time, chance, and the extremely rare beneficial mutation to give you a uniform result in all that diversity....well it stretches credibility to the point of transparency. As to the assertion that an eye would be detrimental to those dark cave dwellers because because it is a soft useless glob prone to infection so would be mutated out over time. The same logic applies to surface dwellers. What good is a partially evolved glob (eye) in a mammal, reptile, or insect. It certainly is not a survival factor. The same applies to partially formed wings, or nubs waiting hopeful eons to grow into arms with hands or legs with feet to aid in survival. And as I mentioned last week, try to imagine the quantum leap from asexual to sexual (male and female procreation just to be clear this time). The complexities in that scenario are insurmountable. And then someone mentioned the "overwhelming evidence" for Darwin's theory. Well, the world is still waiting for that. There are reputable scientists jumping off the good ship Beagle all the time. A little imagination is good to have in science but but when it continually becomes your default position you have gone from science to fantasy. Time to get a new theory. Ron
Eyesight seems an important survival factor to me. Evolution does not depend on that rare beneficial mutation. There is a lot of fossil evidence that contradicts your assertions.
Hold on Kim, your first hunch was correct. To think of all the species
you mentioned (and more), factor in the eco-systems spread far and wide, and then assume a theory that utilizes only time, chance, and the extremely rare beneficial mutation to give you a uniform result in all that diversity....well it stretches credibility to the point of transparency. As to the assertion that an eye would be detrimental to those dark cave dwellers because because it is a soft useless glob prone to infection so would be mutated out over time. The same logic applies to surface dwellers. What good is a partially evolved glob (eye) in a mammal, reptile, or insect. It certainly is not a survival factor. The same applies to partially formed wings, or nubs waiting hopeful eons to grow into arms with hands or legs with feet to aid in survival. And as I mentioned last week, try to imagine the quantum leap from asexual to sexual (male and female procreation just to be clear this time). The complexities in that scenario are insurmountable. And then someone mentioned the "overwhelming evidence" for Darwin's theory. Well, the world is still waiting for that. There are reputable scientists jumping off the good ship Beagle all the time. A little imagination is good to have in science but but when it continually becomes your default position you have gone from science to fantasy. Time to get a new theory.
Ron _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Erik, The fossil record implies nothing regarding mutation. What it tells us is that species may change over time. This change is theorized to come about because of genetic change that alters a particular attribute of the individual. If that new attribute offers a competitive advantage over the general specie population and is passed off to offspring, those individuals will increase in numbers over the general specie population because of natural selection. The fossil record documents the change in life over time. By tracking the population of fossils of a given class or order over time, it is fairly apparent that changes have occurred, and in many cases resulted in many species present in younger strata where few species were present in the same class or order in older strata. Rodger -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 8:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] privatization was space-x yada yada
Eyesight seems an important survival factor to me. Evolution does not depend on that rare beneficial mutation. There is a lot of fossil evidence that contradicts your assertions.
Hold on Kim, your first hunch was correct. To think of all the species
you mentioned (and more), factor in the eco-systems spread far and wide, and then assume a theory that utilizes only time, chance, and the extremely rare beneficial mutation to give you a uniform result in all that diversity....well it stretches credibility to the point of transparency. As to the assertion that an eye would be detrimental to those dark cave dwellers because because it is a soft useless glob prone to infection so would be mutated out over time. The same logic applies to surface dwellers. What good is a partially evolved glob (eye) in a mammal, reptile, or insect. It certainly is not a survival factor. The same applies to partially formed wings, or nubs waiting hopeful eons to grow into arms with hands or legs with feet to aid in survival. And as I mentioned last week, try to imagine the quantum leap from asexual to sexual (male and female procreation just to be clear this time). The complexities in that scenario are insurmountable. And then someone mentioned the "overwhelming evidence" for Darwin's theory. Well, the world is still waiting for that. There are reputable scientists jumping off the good ship Beagle all the time. A little imagination is good to have in science but but when it continually becomes your default position you have gone from science to fantasy. Time to get a new theory.
Ron _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Roger,
I reject that it is "mutations" that are the driving force, species diversity is what does. That species change over time is what evolution is, I guess you agree the fossil record supports evolution. It also shows life existed and evolved over hundreds of millions of years, also supporting evolution. I would call an example of a mutation something like spina bifida or a mutation that affects normal metabolism. The complexity of DNA explains diversity I would argue not all variation would be described as a "mutation". Erik Erik,
The fossil record implies nothing regarding mutation. What it tells us is that species may change over time. This change is theorized to come about because of genetic change that alters a particular attribute of the individual. If that new attribute offers a competitive advantage over the general specie population and is passed off to offspring, those individuals will increase in numbers over the general specie population because of natural selection. The fossil record documents the change in life over time. By tracking the population of fossils of a given class or order over time, it is fairly apparent that changes have occurred, and in many cases resulted in many species present in younger strata where few species were present in the same class or order in older strata.
Rodger
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 8:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] privatization was space-x yada yada
Eyesight seems an important survival factor to me. Evolution does not depend on that rare beneficial mutation. There is a lot of fossil evidence that contradicts your assertions.
Hold on Kim, your first hunch was correct. To think of all the species
you mentioned (and more), factor in the eco-systems spread far and wide, and then assume a theory that utilizes only time, chance, and the extremely rare beneficial mutation to give you a uniform result in all that diversity....well it stretches credibility to the point of transparency. As to the assertion that an eye would be detrimental to those dark cave dwellers because because it is a soft useless glob prone to infection so would be mutated out over time. The same logic applies to surface dwellers. What good is a partially evolved glob (eye) in a mammal, reptile, or insect. It certainly is not a survival factor. The same applies to partially formed wings, or nubs waiting hopeful eons to grow into arms with hands or legs with feet to aid in survival. And as I mentioned last week, try to imagine the quantum leap from asexual to sexual (male and female procreation just to be clear this time). The complexities in that scenario are insurmountable. And then someone mentioned the "overwhelming evidence" for Darwin's theory. Well, the world is still waiting for that. There are reputable scientists jumping off the good ship Beagle all the time. A little imagination is good to have in science but but when it continually becomes your default position you have gone from science to fantasy. Time to get a new theory.
Ron _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Parental DNA involves 2 parents, there is genetic information from one parent that might not be expressed in the offspring. A departure seems rather hard to define and things thought of as a departure, in reality may not be. Multiple genes can determine a single trait, we have a lot to learn about the interplay of genetic info. Genes can also be latent just unexpressed, so a seeming departure might be contained in parental DNA. Birth defects are very much contained in parental DNA, environmental influence may also come into play. I would argue bio-diversity is ingrained in DNA, it strengthens a species.
If a parent has blue eyes and the offspring has brown, is that a mutation? I apologize for the over simplification. The genetic code is a long way form being figured out, it has only been crudely mapped. I believe any variation from parental DNA is by definition a
"mutation", whether good or bad.
On 12/11/10, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
I would argue not all variation would be described as a "mutation".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
On 12/13/10, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
If a parent has blue eyes and the offspring has brown, is that a mutation? I apologize for the over simplification. The genetic code is a long way form being figured out, it has only been crudely mapped.
With respect, you are overcomplicating the issue a bit, Erik. Blue-eyed offspring from brown-eyed parents still got their DNA through one parent or the other; traits such as this, whether from recessive or dominant genes, are still due to the offspring's lineage, not a random mutation. I think most people accept the larger definition without picking nits.
My kids are convinced I’m a mutant. Go figure. On Dec 13, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Chuck Hards wrote:
On 12/13/10, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
If a parent has blue eyes and the offspring has brown, is that a mutation? I apologize for the over simplification. The genetic code is a long way form being figured out, it has only been crudely mapped.
With respect, you are overcomplicating the issue a bit, Erik.
Blue-eyed offspring from brown-eyed parents still got their DNA through one parent or the other; traits such as this, whether from recessive or dominant genes, are still due to the offspring's lineage, not a random mutation. I think most people accept the larger definition without picking nits.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I was in delivery once and the OB Doc told the father "it looks like the mailman". The father was a friend of his, BTW.
My kids are convinced Im a mutant. Go figure.
On Dec 13, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Chuck Hards wrote:
On 12/13/10, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
If a parent has blue eyes and the offspring has brown, is that a mutation? I apologize for the over simplification. The genetic code is a long way form being figured out, it has only been crudely mapped.
With respect, you are overcomplicating the issue a bit, Erik.
Blue-eyed offspring from brown-eyed parents still got their DNA through one parent or the other; traits such as this, whether from recessive or dominant genes, are still due to the offspring's lineage, not a random mutation. I think most people accept the larger definition without picking nits.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Perhaps, but my point was differences we know that come from dominate genes are not called mutations. It seems likely we just don't understand the DNA code enough to state what is a mutation and what is not. Humans' evolving better brains is not through mutation but rather gradual change because intelligence is becoming more important to survival.
In the original case of the spider perhaps the sight gene was just turned off and could just as easily be turned back on if need be, thus not a random mutation but a natural response to the environment. On 12/13/10, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net>
wrote:
If a parent has blue eyes and the offspring has brown, is that a mutation? I apologize for the over simplification. The genetic code is a long way form being figured out, it has only been crudely mapped.
With respect, you are overcomplicating the issue a bit, Erik.
Blue-eyed offspring from brown-eyed parents still got their DNA through one parent or the other; traits such as this, whether from recessive or dominant genes, are still due to the offspring's lineage, not a random mutation. I think most people accept the larger definition without picking nits.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Kim, The same “logic” does not apply to surface dwellers. A partial eye would be extremely useful in an environment where having sight would be a distinct advantage. Being able to perceive shadows and such would be preferable to no sight at all and would be a survival factor. Hence, the eye evolving at least a dozen different times on this planet. Addressing partially formed wings. A common misconception of those that haven’t read Darwin’s theory is to assume that the present utility or function of a particular biologic trait is the reason that trait evolved. There are many instances in the fossil record, particularly in China, where non-avian and avian species had feathers and wing-like structures. These structures were not used for flight. However, these structures were co-opted and did evolve to that capability in some dinosaur species, most notably, birds. By the way, from a cladistic point of view birds are not, merely, related to dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs. As to the overwhelming evidence of evolution and Darwin’s theory of natural selection as a primary driving force of increasing organic complexity there is no dispute in the scientific community. Also, there is no competing scientific theory to my knowledge. If you are aware of one, please, let me know. Darwin’s theory is as robust as any scientific theory we have, much more robust than, say, string theory. The evidence: ecologic, fossil, biochemical, genetic, geographic, taxonomic, etc., all give solid backing to Darwin’s theory. The theory can be falsified. How? As J. B. S. Haldane remarked “rabbit fossils in Devonian strata.” That scenario, simply, does not happen. As to reputable scientists jumping off the Darwin-theory bandwagon, I don’t see it. A challenge: go to your Google search engine (or whatever search engine you prefer) and search for any competing scientific theory (one that is being actively pursued at the present time) regarding evolution of life forms on this planet. Cite 10 articles in scientific peer-reviewed primary literature that address this “new” scientific theoretic construct of evolution. Then type in natural selection or Darwin’s theory of evolution and view the tens-of-thousands of citations in the primary scientific literature related to this theory. In the above challenge for the competing theory I would be impressed if you listed three. Remember, scientific theories, only. I think you will find the scientific evidence “overwhelming” for Darwin’s theory. Hopefully, I did not offend. Also, I’m not addressing the challenges and such directly to you. I mean a “generic” sort of you. End of discussion on this platform. I can feel Patrick glaring at me. Dave On Dec 11, 2010, at 2:11 AM, RON VANDERHULE wrote:
Hold on Kim, your first hunch was correct. To think of all the species you mentioned (and more), factor in the eco-systems spread far and wide, and then assume a theory that utilizes only time, chance, and the extremely rare beneficial mutation to give you a uniform result in all that diversity....well it stretches credibility to the point of transparency. As to the assertion that an eye would be detrimental to those dark cave dwellers because because it is a soft useless glob prone to infection so would be mutated out over time. The same logic applies to surface dwellers. What good is a partially evolved glob (eye) in a mammal, reptile, or insect. It certainly is not a survival factor. The same applies to partially formed wings, or nubs waiting hopeful eons to grow into arms with hands or legs with feet to aid in survival. And as I mentioned last week, try to imagine the quantum leap from asexual to sexual (male and female procreation just to be clear this time). The complexities in that scenario are insurmountable. And then someone mentioned the "overwhelming evidence" for Darwin's theory. Well, the world is still waiting for that. There are reputable scientists jumping off the good ship Beagle all the time. A little imagination is good to have in science but but when it continually becomes your default position you have gone from science to fantasy. Time to get a new theory.
Ron _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
For those interested here is an article the explains current biology on the issue of evolution. They explain that diversity within the species is what natural selection acts on, IE there are many genes that contribute to single trait. I think many forget how complex and immense DNA codes, they contain many opportunities for diversity. Perhaps, this diversity of of divine plan perhaps not.
I would remind everyone that evolution is still taught at the undergraduate and graduate level. It is hard to imagine a person receiving a Phd in any science without accepting evolution. Yes, many questions remain but science is learning much more about genetics than darwin had any clue about. Darwin mostly made observations about how species seem to be well adapted to their environment. The theory of evolution today is hardly the same as Darwin described it. http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/evolution_forget_random_mutatio... Kim,
The same logic does not apply to surface dwellers. A partial eye would be extremely useful in an environment where having sight would be a distinct advantage. Being able to perceive shadows and such would be preferable to no sight at all and would be a survival factor. Hence, the eye evolving at least a dozen different times on this planet. Addressing partially formed wings. A common misconception of those that havent read Darwins theory is to assume that the present utility or function of a particular biologic trait is the reason that trait evolved. There are many instances in the fossil record, particularly in China, where non-avian and avian species had feathers and wing-like structures. These structures were not used for flight. However, these structures were co-opted and did evolve to that capability in some dinosaur species, most notably, birds. By the way, from a cladistic point of view birds are not, merely, related to dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs.
As to the overwhelming evidence of evolution and Darwins theory of natural selection as a primary driving force of increasing organic complexity there is no dispute in the scientific community. Also, there is no competing scientific theory to my knowledge. If you are aware of one, please, let me know. Darwins theory is as robust as any scientific theory we have, much more robust than, say, string theory. The evidence: ecologic, fossil, biochemical, genetic, geographic, taxonomic, etc., all give solid backing to Darwins theory. The theory can be falsified. How? As J. B. S. Haldane remarked rabbit fossils in Devonian strata. That scenario, simply, does not happen.
As to reputable scientists jumping off the Darwin-theory bandwagon, I dont see it.
A challenge: go to your Google search engine (or whatever search engine you prefer) and search for any competing scientific theory (one that is being actively pursued at the present time) regarding evolution of life forms on this planet. Cite 10 articles in scientific peer-reviewed primary literature that address this new scientific theoretic construct of evolution. Then type in natural selection or Darwins theory of evolution and view the tens-of-thousands of citations in the primary scientific literature related to this theory. In the above challenge for the competing theory I would be impressed if you listed three. Remember, scientific theories, only.
I think you will find the scientific evidence overwhelming for Darwins theory.
Hopefully, I did not offend. Also, Im not addressing the challenges and such directly to you. I mean a generic sort of you.
End of discussion on this platform. I can feel Patrick glaring at me.
Dave
On Dec 11, 2010, at 2:11 AM, RON VANDERHULE wrote:
Hold on Kim, your first hunch was correct. To think of all the species you mentioned (and more), factor in the eco-systems spread far and wide, and then assume a theory that utilizes only time, chance, and the extremely rare beneficial mutation to give you a uniform result in all that diversity....well it stretches credibility to the point of transparency. As to the assertion that an eye would be detrimental to those dark cave dwellers because because it is a soft useless glob prone to infection so would be mutated out over time. The same logic applies to surface dwellers. What good is a partially evolved glob (eye) in a mammal, reptile, or insect. It certainly is not a survival factor. The same applies to partially formed wings, or nubs waiting hopeful eons to grow into arms with hands or legs with feet to aid in survival. And as I mentioned last week, try to imagine the quantum leap from asexual to sexual (male and female procreation just to be clear this time). The complexities in that scenario are insurmountable. And then someone mentioned the "overwhelming evidence" for Darwin's theory. Well, the world is still waiting for that. There are reputable scientists jumping off the good ship Beagle all the time. A little imagination is good to have in science but but when it continually becomes your default position you have gone from science to fantasy. Time to get a new theory.
Ron _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (5)
-
Chuck Hards -
Dave Gary -
erikhansen＠thebluezone.net -
Rodger C. Fry -
RON VANDERHULE