|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 23, 2011 20:50:04 GMT -5
Another problem with that analogy is that, unlike a gene encoding for a protein, a string of letters can literally have any meaning & won't "fall apart." Case in point: CTHULHU.
That shit meant nothing before 1926, & now practically everyone knows what it means. So does that mean that an irreducibly complex system can, in fact, just spontaneously evolve all on its own, or is this analogy just a really awful attempt at a rebuttal?
Can you repeat that in English?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Sept 23, 2011 21:07:15 GMT -5
A few weeks ago, when the critter called Xiaotingia (I assume it's the species name?) was formally scientifically described, it and archaeopteryx and so forth were classified as dinosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 23, 2011 21:37:15 GMT -5
So, looking at an article on this, the reclassification seems to be something like this:
Before:
Dinosaur==========================Archaeopteryx======Bird
After:
Dinosaur======Archaeopteryx==========================Bird
As in it's not so much completely different from what it was thought to be, just lower on the transitional fossil scale?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 24, 2011 0:29:28 GMT -5
So, looking at an article on this, the reclassification seems to be something like this: Before: Dinosaur==========================Archaeopteryx======Bird After: Dinosaur======Archaeopteryx==========================Bird As in it's not so much completely different from what it was thought to be, just lower on the transitional fossil scale? Yes, maybe possibly probably.
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Sept 24, 2011 11:32:43 GMT -5
It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. O RLY? Try this on for size: "May I have a cheeseburger?" "Can I have a cheeseburger?" "Can I have cheeseburger?" "I can have cheeseburger?" "I can has cheeseburger?" "I can has cheesburger?" "I can has cheezburger?" "I can haz cheezburger?" You know your argument is pathetic when LOLcats can disprove it.
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Sept 28, 2011 5:58:36 GMT -5
Saying it's debunked =/= debunked any more than "Atheism is Dead!" will result in thousands converting to Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 30, 2011 20:59:28 GMT -5
But they have that guy who did all those things & a bunch of quotes about how he's wrong. Surely that counts for something, right?
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Oct 3, 2011 21:30:12 GMT -5
Actually I've heard the theories about Archaeopteryx before, but I'm of the mind that it and the raptor group branched off from the ancestors of birds. It was proposed that birds came from an arboreal climbing and gliding type dinosaur which was smaller than Archaeopteryx.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always believed that most visible physical deformities were caused by adverse conditions in the womb (chemical exposure, malnutrition, injury) or damaged zygotes, and are therefore NOT mutations.
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Oct 4, 2011 14:13:56 GMT -5
Actually I've heard the theories about Archaeopteryx before, but I'm of the mind that it and the raptor group branched off from the ancestors of birds. It was proposed that birds came from an arboreal climbing and gliding type dinosaur which was smaller than Archaeopteryx. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always believed that most visible physical deformities were caused by adverse conditions in the womb (chemical exposure, malnutrition, injury) or damaged zygotes, and are therefore NOT mutations. Down Syndrome is caused by trisomy 23. In other words, a mutation in the egg or sperm resulted in an extra chromosome. You can tell a person has DS just by looking, because of the abnormal positioning of the ears and facial features.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 4, 2011 14:31:47 GMT -5
Raptor? A bird? Don't tell Ironbite that...
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Oct 4, 2011 14:41:58 GMT -5
Please I've known for years that raptors evolved into birds. And eventually got feathers.
Ironbite-eventually.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 4, 2011 16:35:36 GMT -5
Bullshit!
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 4, 2011 16:56:47 GMT -5
Actually I've heard the theories about Archaeopteryx before, but I'm of the mind that it and the raptor group branched off from the ancestors of birds. It was proposed that birds came from an arboreal climbing and gliding type dinosaur which was smaller than Archaeopteryx. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always believed that most visible physical deformities were caused by adverse conditions in the womb (chemical exposure, malnutrition, injury) or damaged zygotes, and are therefore NOT mutations. Down Syndrome is caused by trisomy 23. In other words, a mutation in the egg or sperm resulted in an extra chromosome. You can tell a person has DS just by looking, because of the abnormal positioning of the ears and facial features. Okay, but that doesn't really answer her question. Not that I know the answer. I really don't know if more disorders are developmental or genetic.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Oct 4, 2011 17:34:44 GMT -5
Down Syndrome is caused by trisomy 23. In other words, a mutation in the egg or sperm resulted in an extra chromosome. You can tell a person has DS just by looking, because of the abnormal positioning of the ears and facial features. Okay, but that doesn't really answer her question. Not that I know the answer. I really don't know if more disorders are developmental or genetic. Well, I remember a big deal some years ago about frogs with misshapen/missing hind legs. Like in the early 00s people thought it was radiation or pollution making the genes mutate, but it turned out to be caused by aquatic insect larvae biting the leg-buds off of small tadpoles. Since Down Syndrome is caused by an extra chromosome, I don't think that can be called a genetic mutation, since it's not a change in allele frequency - it's a mistake in the originating zygote. Polydactyly IS genetic and inheritable, so it might be a true mutation. However its effect on its carriers is largely neutral.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Oct 4, 2011 18:08:14 GMT -5
Down Syndrome is a mutation. Mutations are changes in the genome and Downs as you know is caused by an extra chromosome. Chromosomes are part of the genome.
I'm also a bit confused why you'd mention that polydactylyism is neutral.
|
|