RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LadyEllen -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 7:08:08 AM)
Rule - agreeing with me!? Unheard of! Glad to hear my speculation (that was all it was people) seems OK though! E

philosophy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 7:12:22 AM)
...after much thought i have come to the conclusion that seeks was frightened by Darwin as a small child, or possibly a beagle barked funny at him.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 7:49:29 AM)
As already stated, there is a mountain of phenotypical evidence for Common Descent - it's the shared traits of so many disparate organisms. If you want to look at some work involving shared traits at the protein level, here are some analyses of Protein Tyrosine Phosphatases (PTPs). You will note first, that there are actually many examples already known of these proteins, that have similar sequence, structure and function. You will note next, that there are two types of residue from Evolution that are revealed within the Homologous (similar/analogous) proteins: 1. Paralogs: these are homologs that exist within the same organism. Humans, for example, have many PTPs. They are the reside of transpositions (copying and insertion of the gene back into the genome), and subsequent independent variations thereof. 2. Orthologs: these are the residue of Common Descent. Note orthologous PTPs for humans, worms, and fruit flies. See analyses at: http://ptp.cshl.edu/proteinclass.shtml

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 8:03:40 AM)
As far as sexual reproduction in diploid organisms goes, the advantage that is conferred is another mechanism of genetic variation - the random selection and recombination of half of the genes from the diploid parent cells to generate the haploid germ cells through meiosis, and the subsequent combination of the germ cell genes of the parents in the offspring through fusion of the ovum and sperm to generate the zygote (e.g., a fertilized egg). This crossover operation and fusion if you will, results in the random combination of the characteristics of two prior solutions - in this way, complementary and independent partial solutions arrived at by two different individuals can be combined to achieve a (more) complete solution to an environmental problem. This type of mechanism is such an advantage, that even organisms which do not reproduce sexually generally have some mechanism of sharing genetic information, albeit otherwise normally within the same generation (this sometimes termed horizontal evolution). Bacteria, for example, exchange/combine genetic information between individuals through plasmids. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmids

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 8:38:33 AM)
For anyone who will now posit that there is something unique about Protein Tyrosine Phosphatases, here is for example, a phylogenetic tree of Myosins - you will note again paralogs and orthologs, and again that orthologs occur even between distantly related species, such as amoeba, plants, and humans... Myosin family tree: http://www.proweb.org/myosin/trees/gifs/tree.jpg

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 9:31:19 AM)
Let's see... Homology comparison of GPCR's (G-Protein Coupled Receptors) in a pufferfish species recently sequenced, and humans: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1187884 Analysis of some opsin-protein families in sequenced vertebrates: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=404106&rendertype=figure&id=fig1 A phylogenetic analysis of alpha-Kinases (shared among, e.g. fungi, humans, amoeba...) http://serine.umdnj.edu/~soterost/cgi-bin/displayMainMapIndex.cgi

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 9:52:00 AM)
Daddy says... For anyone who will now posit that there is something unique about Protein Tyrosine Phosphatases, Daddy if that is a dig at me , which I very much doubt, then I can assure you I wouldn't even like to say it let alone posit about it. Consider two species of population X where one reproduces asexually and the other sexually. Since all the members of the asexual population can reproduce while only 50 % of the other species can it seems to me that the asexuals have a clear advantage. NO ? As for the genetic diversity advantage of sexual reproduction, that is only a real advantage if Natural Selection is the engine of Evolution. NO? In other words N_ssers rotating on their circular arguments. AGAIN ! Also if I speculate that the asexual eats the sexual then bingo. which must be true N_ssers because I speculate it, you do that all the time then....I win ! Funny thing is I am getting a spinning head but amongst all the jargon I ploughed through, did I read that sexual reproduction pre dates asexual. Not to mention of course the complexity of the changes required getting from one to the other with NO intermediate advantage . Whichever came first.!

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 9:52:49 AM)
Hmmm, familial analysis of Mechanosensitive Channel Proteins (found across all domains of life): http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=150521 Phylogenetic analysis of sodium ion-channel transport proteins in veretebrates http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=34712

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 10:08:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Funny thing is I am getting a spinning head but amongst all the jargon I ploughed through, did I read that sexual reproduction pre dates asexual. Yes, your head is spinning. [:)]

LadyEllen -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 10:09:12 AM)
seeks - are you trying to get nominated for the Awkward Squad or something LOL!? I respect your will to stand by your points, but they seem to have been rebutted long since. Sexual reproduction didnt become out of asexual reproduction as an improvement to that latter method - such a view implies that such a development was a concious one, or one even driven by some concious intervention. Sexual reproduction arose alongside asexual reproduction, and it is the environment which determines which is better. If you are a bacterium then in your environment it might be advantageous to be asexual, if you are some other life form then sexual reproduction might be better in your environment. That there are successful lifeforms of both types indicates this - as sexual reproducers mankind is successful in its environment, and as asexual reproducers bacteria are successful in theirs. It all depends on environment as to which is better and therefore which form prospers - natural selection based on reproductive method vs environment if you will, in the same way that a species as a whole will stand or fall according to adaptation to environment and the changes in that environment. E

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 10:09:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Consider species of population X where one reproduces asexually and the other sexually. Since all the members of the asexual population can reproduce while only 50 % of the other species can it seems to me that the asexuals have a clear advantage. NO ? Eh, no. I have no idea what you're talking about. All (functioning) individuals in a population of sexually reproducing organisms can also reproduce - you came from both your mommy and your daddy - no stork needed. 50% aren't left out... what are you talking about? quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave As for the genetic diversity advantage of sexual reproduction, that is only a real advantage if Natural Selection is the engine of of Evolution. NO? In other words N_Ssers rotating on their circular agauments. AGAIN ! Eh, no. There is no need to invoke full belief in Darwin or all of evolutionary theory to understand the advantage that I just presented. It works when I use genetic algorithms to optimize numerical functions too. It's just basic logic and analysis. By allowing two individuals to combine parts of their solution (yes, even randomly) in order to form the "offspring" solution, you allow independently constructed partial solutions to generate a (more) whole solution. It works great. This is yet another example of what's wrong with the (at best) misguided assertions of vanishing probabilistic likellihood made by ID proponents. They assume pure, independent events giving rise to the final outcome. Now, that is just stupid. There is no statistical independence here in the events that make up the physical mechanism. They are correlated events, which necessarily increases the probability of particular combinations arising "by chance". The concepts of statistical independence and statistical correlation of random variables arise in even elementary statistics. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Also if I speculate that the asexual eats the sexual then bingo. I win ! What on earth are you talking about? quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Not to mention of course the complexity of the changes getting from one to the other with NO intermediate advantage . Whichever came first. I have already addressed this point in this thread. Multiple times. Either you don't get it, or you simply ignore it for your own purposes.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 10:38:17 AM)
Here is something else coming at it from a different angle. Here is the homepage of what is widely considered the leading software for doing protein-ligand docking analysis, Gold. The goal of such computer modeling is to try to identify how, how well, and how strongly a protein will fit together and bind with another molecule, usually a small molecule that is being considered as an idea for a drug candidate. Now, how does Gold rapidly and robustly optimize the fit in their modeling? With a genetic algorithm. Gee, I thought evolution is such a weak optimization model, with vanishingly small likelihoods of success??? No, only people who don't understand evolution say that. See Gold at: http://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/products/life_sciences/gold/

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 11:16:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Also if I speculate that the asexual eats the sexual then bingo. which must be true N_ssers because I speculate it, you do that all the time then....I win ! I am still trying to guess what in the hell you are talking about. It sounds like you are trying to assert that if species X eats species Y, then species X has higher fitness, and also that it will therefore eliminate Y??? If so, then again, ehhhh, no. In general, one cannot say a darned thing about the fitness of X&Y because of any predator-prey relation between them, nor is there any reason to think that X will therefore eliminate Y, if it eats Y. Leapords eat chimpanzees - so what? The point is, chimps and leapords are not competing for the same ecological niche, so considerations of relative fitness are actually simply misplaced questions. For the same reason, chimps and leapords may coexist indefinitely (as do so many other predator/prey combinations), even though one can eat the other - I repeat, they do not compete for the same ecological niche.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 12:10:46 PM)
The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide. ...Ralph Waldo Emerson

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 12:45:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Sexual reproduction didnt become out of asexual reproduction as an improvement to that latter method - such a view implies that such a development was a concious one, or one even driven by some concious intervention. Sexual reproduction arose alongside asexual reproduction, and it is the environment which determines which is better. If you are a bacterium then in your environment it might be advantageous to be asexual, if you are some other life form then sexual reproduction might be better in your environment. That there are successful lifeforms of both types indicates this - as sexual reproducers mankind is successful in its environment, and as asexual reproducers bacteria are successful in theirs. It all depends on environment as to which is better and therefore which form prospers - natural selection based on reproductive method vs environment if you will, in the same way that a species as a whole will stand or fall according to adaptation to environment and the changes in that environment. E Don't confuse us with rational ideas, LadyEllen! [;)] Let's see, let me put on my aluminum foil Intelligent Design Hat on now... Okay, it's coming to me now, yes... Since we don't know conclusively today, precisely how sexual reproduction arose millions of years ago in the past... therefore... Obviously it's proven beyond a doubt then that the construction of male and female compliments in a species acutally originated from intelligent aliens that resembled Ronald McDonald who flew to Earth from Mars in the year 1873, riding in spaceships that looked like Buick Le Sabres and fueled by Divine Twinkies! Yes, that conclusion follows naturally and inexorably! QED!

LadyEllen -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 1:16:04 PM)
ah, yes! Now that makes much more sense! Though I fear I may have to excommunicate you, imprison your family and torture them to death and declare war on you - clearly the aliens resembled Hamburglar and it really upsets me and threatens my very existence that you can think otherwise LOL! E

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 1:23:31 PM)
Daddy am I right in saying that a FUNDAMENTAL tenet of natural selection is that only those changes that confer advantage, will, when exposed to environmental pressures, take hold in a species and ultimately give rise to new species. If yes then it is clear, looked at from the numerical point of view ,asexual reproduction produces more offspring than sexual reproduction. The X in my example was the species number NOT one of the species. Since quantity is more advantageous from the survival viewpoint why did sexual reproduction come into being under the influence of Natural Selection. ie in asexual populations X can reproduce. in sexual populations only X/2 can reproduce. Catch my drift ? Lady Ellen it is no use stating the advantages of each method of reproduction WHEN THEY EXIST. The big question is how did they come into being.

LadyEllen -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 1:42:37 PM)
Oh seeks.......... unless I build a time machine and go back to check it and bring video pictures back, you wont believe anything I write in answer anyway (and even then I suspect you'd find fault with it). The thing is, none of us know for sure, but we can be 99.99999% sure from all the evidence we have, that evolution is far more likely an explanation for life on earth developing through natural selection over millions of years, than that the world was created in six days a few thousand years ago by God or aliens or little white mice or whatever else. Its just a shame we cant evolve out of the mindset that says we have to uphold a belief in creation which is totally inconsequential to faith in Christ. E

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 1:50:46 PM)
I think arguing with a creationist is like trying to convince a racist person why they shouldn't be racist. It just doesn't work.

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/15/2006 1:51:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Oh seeks.......... unless I build a time machine and go back to check it and bring video pictures back, you wont believe anything I write in answer anyway (and even then I suspect you'd find fault with it). The thing is, none of us know for sure, but we can be 99.99999% sure from all the evidence we have, that evolution is far more likely an explanation for life on earth developing through natural selection over millions of years, than that the world was created in six days a few thousand years ago by God or aliens or little white mice or whatever else. Its just a shame we cant evolve out of the mindset that says we have to uphold a belief in creation which is totally inconsequential to faith in Christ. E Little white mice. Earth is really a super computer. The answer is 42, quick, what's the question?? BOOM

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875