|
Post by MaybeNever on Oct 5, 2011 15:05:27 GMT -5
You are absolutely correct. "Suck it up and deal with it" doesn't strike me as the most productive way to help a person come to understand, though. It just smacks of bootstraps.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 5, 2011 15:28:46 GMT -5
I'm still wondering if I have this whole archaeopteryx shit right. It was originally thought to be ancestral to birds. It is now considered to be ancestral to velociraptors instead. This didn't come to light until a new dinosaur, Xiaotingia, was found and compared to Archaeopteryx. Not how the article made it sound, but I'll take your word for it. So what does that mean in terms of the relationship between raptors/dinosaurs & birds?
|
|
|
Post by Magnizeal on Oct 5, 2011 17:42:28 GMT -5
You are absolutely correct. "Suck it up and deal with it" doesn't strike me as the most productive way to help a person come to understand, though. It just smacks of bootstraps. When you are hung up on definitions, when you learn the real definition of a word, you replace your faulty understanding with your corrected understanding. That's what I've always done. Granted, I might not have made the correlation between 'mutation' and 'trisomy' without it being pointed out to me, that is true, but once it was pointed out, I would accept it. Maybe mutter about how it's very different than I expected, but still accept it. I'm not trying to sound boot-strappy, I'm just telling you what does happen in my life on a near-monthly basis, since Vene keeps babbling about science.
|
|
|
Post by Random Guy on Oct 5, 2011 19:51:05 GMT -5
It was originally thought to be ancestral to birds. It is now considered to be ancestral to velociraptors instead. This didn't come to light until a new dinosaur, Xiaotingia, was found and compared to Archaeopteryx. Not how the article made it sound, but I'll take your word for it. So what does that mean in terms of the relationship between raptors/dinosaurs & birds? Not much. Plenty of feathered dinosaurs are known and plenty of dinosaurlike primitive birds are known as well.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Oct 5, 2011 20:07:03 GMT -5
I... am willing to change that definition, I'm just not SEEING it. :/ I'm sorry, I'd like to, it just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 5, 2011 20:29:56 GMT -5
Rat, does the addition of an entire chromosome change an organism's genome?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 5, 2011 20:53:21 GMT -5
Bah, my thing didn't send:
I'm not asking if they're somehow not related now, I'm asking how specifically birds are related to dinosaurs, & if that's changed very much.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Oct 5, 2011 20:55:11 GMT -5
Rat, does the addition of an entire chromosome change an organism's genome? Not if it's just the same chromosome being accidentally copied. There's no change in the information.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 5, 2011 21:03:44 GMT -5
Rat, does the addition of an entire chromosome change an organism's genome? Not if it's just the same chromosome being accidentally copied. There's no change in the information. Then how are duplications mutations? And it actually does mean a lot because having more genes means more proteins, which leads to different phenotypes (which is why people with down's syndrome look the way they do and also why one X chromosome in women needs to be silenced).
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 5, 2011 21:08:54 GMT -5
1---Duplication-->11.
No difference at all.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Oct 5, 2011 21:14:19 GMT -5
I... am willing to change that definition, I'm just not SEEING it. :/ I'm sorry, I'd like to, it just doesn't make sense to me. Something making sense to you has zero bearing here. There is an accepted definition of a mutation, it's your problem you're not willing to accept it. If you want to have meaningful conversations you need to use the correct definition. Rat, does the addition of an entire chromosome change an organism's genome? Not if it's just the same chromosome being accidentally copied. There's no change in the information. Change in information doesn't matter. Having said that, the introduction of a third copy of a chromosome is an addition of information.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Oct 5, 2011 21:20:55 GMT -5
Ok well, I'm going to wave the white flag for now, and I'm going to consult more sources to try to figure it out.
See, the problem is that you're saying it's the accepted definition, but I couldn't find anywhere that actually SAYS that. And then someone else says I need to be more flexible with definitions and assume something falls under a certain terminology when I don't know for sure, and I'm pretty confused right now... so... I'm going to bow out. You're probably right, I just need to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 5, 2011 21:28:59 GMT -5
Click this and read the title. The first mutation in a chain of mutations is a chromosome duplication. This is talking about trisomy 13 and calls it a mutation as well. This is another journal article that describes ploidy events as mutations.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 6, 2011 11:57:27 GMT -5
I love that "ploidy" is a technical term.
|
|
|
Post by Random Guy on Oct 6, 2011 17:04:16 GMT -5
Bah, my thing didn't send: I'm not asking if they're somehow not related now, I'm asking how specifically birds are related to dinosaurs, & if that's changed very much. They're the sister group to the Archaeopteryx-raptor group, which also includes lightly-built raptor-like creatures called troodontids. Their position did not change very much.
|
|