Are there transitional fossils?

[pitabread]

Ok your the guy who talks about the methodology of comparative genomics and has nothing to say about the methodology or the comparison. Yes, I can imagine that would be surrealistic.

A number of comparative methodologies are based on common descent. It's a basic fact. I linked an example in that thread (several examples now actually).

You can keep acting confused about it, refuse to acknowledge it and are resorting to hand waving dismissals. Are you afraid of what you might uncover?

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm literally separating DNA from living cells and sequencing it this week. I'd be glad to post the method behind it on request. It's a bit of an outdated one, sure, but my college has limited machinery.

That is so cool, sure I'd like to see it. I assume you use some kind of a centrifuge.

 

[mark kennedy]

A number of comparative methodologies are based on common descent. It's a basic fact. I linked an example in that thread (several examples now actually).

You can keep acting confused about it, refuse to acknowledge it and are resorting to hand waving dismissals. Are you afraid of what you might uncover?

When I'm interested in comparative genomics it's because I want to learn from the comparison. Not to set up some circular rhetoric intended to run people in circles chasing ghosts in the fog. Did you seriously think anyone was going to fall for that? I'm not that gullible. Genomic comparisons are creating an insurmountable burden of proof for Darwinians, what your doing is diversionary

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is so cool, sure I'd like to see it. I assume you use some kind of a centrifuge.

I'll post pictures of the exact process once I get home, as I don't have a camera with me right now, and it would take hours for me to type it out. A centrifuge is used, multiple times, which doesn't limit you from trying it yourself. You can buy a small centrifuge for the price of a toaster.

Since the lab manual itself doesn't say how to use a centrifuge, I'll outline that.

You need a minimum of 2 centrifuge tubes to place in the centrifuge across from each other, and the contents within MUST be equal. Otherwise, it'll throw off the balance of the machine, causing it to rock violently back and forth and damage the internal parts. You don't stopper the tubes before starting the machine, because the contents stay in on their own, but there is an internal lid you fasten tightly in place right above them. Place the appropriate tubes across from each other, set it on the highest speed for the amounts of time in the directions I will post, and then move on to other steps. Also, even if physically possible, never open a centrifuge while it is still spinning.

 

[pitabread]

When I'm interested in comparative genomics it's because I want to learn from the comparison. Not to set up some circular rhetoric intended to run people in circles chasing ghosts in the fog. Did you seriously think anyone was going to fall for that? I'm not that gullible. Genomic comparisons are creating an insurmountable burden of proof for Darwinians, what your doing is diversionary

Oh look, more handwaving.

It's not gulliblity that's the issue here; it's ignorance.

 

[mark kennedy]

-_- even though human DNA was first completely sequenced in my short, 22 year lifetime, and the first genome sequenced at all was in the same year I was born. Not only that, but the significance of various aspects of natural selection and other basic principles of evolution have been amended much within the past 100 years, and there isn't complete universal agreement, even among evolution supporters. But I guess you think humanity has been sitting with its collective thumb up its butt for the past 100 years on the matter, regardless as to what has actually happened in that time.

The initial sequence lead to the thousand genomes project and beyond. More recently the CRISPUR gene editing tool is being used to treat cancer in China and possibly could be used to irradicate malaria.

I've followed genetics with great interest, I know what's driving discovery is Mendelian not son anachronistic philosophy of old bones and dirt.

Yeah, Mendel's ideas applied well to pea plants, but pea plant inheritance happens to be abnormally simple. It's good for teaching the basic concept, but not in application to but a few traits in most species.

The laws of separation and segregation hold true across all sexually reproducing taxa. The reason Mendel was successful was that he choose seven traits that were either on separate chromosomes or far enough apart they could cross over. He got lucky but the principles produced two laws of inheritance something Darwinism can never do.

You can defeat a person's position faster by disproving their points than by just out-doing their evidence with evidence for your own position. Since this is a debate forum and people don't have the time to type out every bit of evidence for their position possible (a problem for either side), such is the logical approach. People most certainly could be nicer while they do it, as I agree that the insult flinging gets us nowhere.

I don't see it as a contest, although I know most are doing it for sport. I want to know how the polar bear adapts to the arctic but can still interbreed with grizzleys. I would like to know the molecular mechanisms responsible for the de novo antifreeze protein coding gene that independently evolved not once but four times.

-_- I don't. I personally view it as plausible that life arose independently more than once that was similar enough to give the illusion of a universal common ancestor, so I never defend the idea of universal common ancestry.

Your welcome to believe and defend common ancestry as you see fit but don't pretend the inverse logic is not intuitively obvious. And more importantly evolution is not one thing but two things, it's a phenomenon and a theory of natural history, to conflate the two is a fallacious smoke screen known as equivocation.

I don't even view my support of evolution as connected with the fact that I am an atheist. Evolution is not a perfect theory, and I don't think anyone claims that it is, but being imperfect does not equate to "entirely wrong", and it certainly doesn't make creationism right. Heck, disproving evolution wouldn't even make creationism its replacement unless the evidence that disproved evolution strongly supported creationism.

Creation wouldn't disprove evolution, it would start it. The only difference would be the timeline and the fully formed common ancestors. That would be 100% consistent with another law of science known as the law of biogenesis.

 

[pitabread]

Creation wouldn't disprove evolution, it would start it. The only difference would be the timeline and the fully formed common ancestors.

Not really. Nothing is going to change the way things currently appear; life will still looked like it evolved even if it was created.

Which kinda begs the question why any creator would magically create fully formed species that look like they share ancestry with other fully formed species. Just an odd thing, that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The initial sequence lead to the thousand genomes project and beyond. More recently the CRISPUR gene editing tool is being used to treat cancer in China and possibly could be used to irradicate malaria.

I've followed genetics with great interest, I know what's driving discovery is Mendelian not son anachronistic philosophy of old bones and dirt.

Paleontology needs aloe for that burn you just gave it. I do like fossils, but I agree that genetics will be far more interesting and important in the future.

The laws of separation and segregation hold true across all sexually reproducing taxa. The reason Mendel was successful was that he choose seven traits that were either on separate chromosomes or far enough apart they could cross over. He got lucky but the principles produced two laws of inheritance something Darwinism can never do.

The lucky part wasn't cross over, but rather that the traits were controlled by very few genes, allowing for a clear inheritance pattern. If any of the traits had been close together, he might have also made the discovery that certain traits are frequently inherited together.

I do find it funny that the father of genetics had a very minimal understanding of what a gene actually was. His ideas were incorporated into evolution. All discoveries in biology are subject to the possibility of influencing evolution as a theory. Investigations which contribute to evolutionary theory are rarely just termed "evolution science", but are mostly aspects of genetics, physiology, some chemistry, etc.
.

I don't see it as a contest, although I know most are doing it for sport. I want to know how the polar bear adapts to the arctic but can still interbreed with grizzleys. I would like to know the molecular mechanisms responsible for the de novo antifreeze protein coding gene that independently evolved not once but four times.

I recommend this article Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular evolution
Basically, multiple genes that result in essentially the same phenotype, but the genetic sequence is different. There is a lot of redundancy in codons, which each signal the addition of a specific amino acid onto a protein. In fact, only 2 of the 64 codons aren't redundant. So, the separate antifreeze protein genes don't produce exactly the same (though very similar) proteins, and the codons are different. So, different things evolving differently, but get similar results due to identical natural selection pressures.

The article goes into far greater detail, and I do hope you give it a read.

Your welcome to believe and defend common ancestry as you see fit but don't pretend the inverse logic is not intuitively obvious. And more importantly evolution is not one thing but two things, it's a phenomenon and a theory of natural history, to conflate the two is a fallacious smoke screen known as equivocation.

I agree. I have often had to make the distinction that "species changing over time across generations" is the observation, and the theory of evolution is the proposed explanation of how. Calling them both by the same name has resulted in confusion.

Creation wouldn't disprove evolution, it would start it. The only difference would be the timeline and the fully formed common ancestors. That would be 100% consistent with another law of science known as the law of biogenesis.

Depends on the sort of creationism you are into. You can't deny that quite a few participants in these debates would view evolution as entirely incompatible with their brand of creationism. However, it seems to me that you would take more issue with abiogenesis than evolution. To be fair, abiogenesis is a far weaker theory. Make a thread for it and I'll debate that with you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It doesn't bother me, it tells me something that you know nothing about something you pretend to defend.

Well it obviously does because you're always here trying to attack it and anyone who accepts evolution. So it obviously does.
And are you going to respond to my reply in post #225?

 

[mark kennedy]

Paleontology needs aloe for that burn you just gave it. I do like fossils, but I agree that genetics will be far more interesting and important in the future.



The lucky part wasn't cross over, but rather that the traits were controlled by very few genes, allowing for a clear inheritance pattern. If any of the traits had been close together, he might have also made the discovery that certain traits are frequently inherited together.

That wasn't my personal insight, I'm paraphrasing from what I heard a geneticist say on NPR.

I do find it funny that the father of genetics had a very minimal understanding of what a gene actually was. His ideas were incorporated into evolution. All discoveries in biology are subject to the possibility of influencing evolution as a theory. Investigations which contribute to evolutionary theory are rarely just termed "evolution science", but are mostly aspects of genetics, physiology, some chemistry, etc.

Mendel wasn't fishing, he came from an family of farmers who owned various orchards and such. He was recruited by CP Napp who had told the Bruno fathers one day the world will be as indebted to us for life science research as physics is to Isaac Newton. He was recruited like an MIT kid to do research, three years and ten thousand experiments later he had the data for his only surviving paper. That paper would resurface at the dawn of the twentieth century and lay the groundwork for chromosome theory.
.

I recommend this article Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular evolution
Basically, multiple genes that result in essentially the same phenotype, but the genetic sequence is different. There is a lot of redundancy in codons, which each signal the addition of a specific amino acid onto a protein. In fact, only 2 of the 64 codons aren't redundant. So, the separate antifreeze protein genes don't produce exactly the same (though very similar) proteins, and the codons are different. So, different things evolving differently, but get similar results due to identical natural selection pressures.

I've read that several times. They suggest some things about the process but the would have to catch it in the act to determine the mechanism. I was aware of the simple repeats but de novo genes are extremely rare.

The article goes into far greater detail, and I do hope you give it a read.

As I recall I think there have been a couple of papers written on it.




I agree. I have often had to make the distinction that "species changing over time across generations" is the observation, and the theory of evolution is the proposed explanation of how. Calling them both by the same name has resulted in confusion.

Depends on the sort of creationism you are into. You can't deny that quite a few participants in these debates would view evolution as entirely incompatible with their brand of creationism. However, it seems to me that you would take more issue with abiogenesis than evolution. To be fair, abiogenesis is a far weaker theory. Make a thread for it and I'll debate that with you.

The last time I got into abopgenesis it was the RNA world hypothesis and you would bot believed how hopelessly flawed it is. Ill post something on the subject and see how it goes. However, it ranks up there with homonid fossils and comparative genomics, your doing good to get a random remark let alone a substantive discussion.

 

[mark kennedy]

I made a straight forward point that evolution is the change of allels in populations over time and universal common descent. Not one thing but two things, I was responding to the statement that it was just common descent.

Evolution = the change in alleles in a population due to changes in environment or environmental pressure.
Science = the study of the natural world.

[Thianghua, post: 71011429, member: 395317"]evolution= a common descent of all animals on earth. i gave aboce one fossil in the wrong order for instance (too modern to be so ancient- its like finding a human date about 100 my).[/QUOTE]
You dive in head first insulting me for religious convictions you know absolutely nothing about and later respond with the exact same definition of evolution minus universal common descent. Do you have any idea how confused that is?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I made a straight forward point that evolution is the change of allels in populations over time and universal common descent. Not one thing but two things, I was responding to the statement that it was just common descent.


[Thianghua, post: 71011429, member: 395317"]evolution= a common descent of all animals on earth. i gave aboce one fossil in the wrong order for instance (too modern to be so ancient- its like finding a human date about 100 my).

You dive in head first insulting me for religious convictions you know absolutely nothing about and later respond with the exact same definition of evolution minus universal common descent. Do you have any idea how confused that is?[/QUOTE]

... I think you might have your posts mixed up since I'm not making heads or tails of what you're trying to say.

 

[mark kennedy]

You dive in head first insulting me for religious convictions you know absolutely nothing about and later respond with the exact same definition of evolution minus universal common descent. Do you have any idea how confused that is?

... I think you might have your posts mixed up since I'm not making heads or tails of what you're trying to say.

Like I said, I was responding to someone who argued evolution was universal common descent. I was arguing it was the change is allels in populations over time and universal common descent. Your definition of evolution is exactly the same as mine except you omit universal common descent. In the Middle 9f all that you make a big dramatic deal out of insulting my religion, something you know nothing about

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like I said, I was responding to someone who argued evolution was universal common descent. I was arguing it was the change is allels in populations over time and universal common descent. Your definition of evolution is exactly the same as mine except you omit universal common descent. In the Middle 9f all that you make a big dramatic deal out of insulting my religion, something you know nothing about

... okay, then if you were talking to someone else, why did you include my quote from post #225?

 

[mark kennedy]

... okay, then if you were talking to someone else, why did you include my quote from post #225?

Didn't see it obviously, which is easy to do with a half a dozen short snipes instead of one complete post that covers the topic in context. You bent over backwards to insult me for my religion but didn't notice we had the same definition. That is, in a word, confused.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Didn't see it obviously, which is easy to do with a half a dozen short snipes instead of one complete post that covers the topic in context. You bent over backwards to insult me for my religion but didn't notice we had the same definition. That is, in a word, confused.

Where did I insult your for your religion?

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is so cool, sure I'd like to see it. I assume you use some kind of a centrifuge.

Here are the promised pictures, I hope that it is legible enough. I had to have my fiance hold the lab book open. The purpose of the experiment is to insert a gene in the DNA of bacteria and check for if you succeeded. My bad on the sequencing, electrophoresis was last week (-_-'), but still a neat experiment, and we do separate DNA from living cells in it. I realized my error after taking the pictures.

http://i.imgur.com/DekeKLB.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rpxqQwr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/qTGXup3.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7yDFQyH.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/nmtjbnz.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/CmwZdHl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xKS6ZMT.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1apq5mI.jpg

 

[doubtingmerle]

you assume that evolution is true and therefore they have a different history. but again: its just a belief. you cant prove it.

Uh no, there is actually strong evidence for evolution. You just ignore it.

This thread is about transitional fossils. I mentioned to you that, hundreds of millions of years ago, there were no mammals or anything close to mammals, but there were fish and reptiles. Then, after a long period of mammal-like reptiles that incrementally introduced mammal features, we find many different mammals on earth. That is all consistent with evolution. I have asked you how you interpret that evidence. You just ignore it. If you just ignore the evidence we present, then you can hardly complain that there is no evidence.

its easy. first: what about similar species that arent close at all? those creatures contradict your suppose hierarchy. fossa and cat for instance.

From what I see, the fossa, like all carnivals of Madagascar, belongs to a family unique to Madagascar. This particular animal takes on the role normally filled by cats on the mainland, so it developed cat-like features to fill that role. Having no cat in Madagascar, and there being a living to be earned by filling the role of a cat, it is not surprising that a creature evolved that superficially looked like a cat.

Why do you think the animals of Madagascar show evidence of being closely related to each other? I think it is because the island was isolated, and the few animals that were there evolved to perform many different roles. What is your explanation that the fossa is closely related to other Madagascar species, but is not so close to the cat, which it superficially resembles?

sceondly: we can arrange also vehicle in hierarchy: a car--> a commercial car--> a t ruck. but it doesnt prove any evolution. even if they was self replicating.

I am not arranging ancient reptiles, synapsids, therapsids, and mammals in an order. They were put in that order by whatever process layed down the fossil record. I have an explanation for that order. Evolution proceeded down that path. What is your explanation for that order?

 

[mark kennedy]

Uh no, there is actually strong evidence for evolution. You just ignore it.

This thread is about transitional fossils. I mentioned to you that, hundreds of millions of years ago, there were no mammals or anything close to mammals, but there were fish and reptiles. Then, after a long period of mammal-like reptiles that incrementally introduced mammal features, we find many different mammals on earth. That is all consistent with evolution. I have asked you how you interpret that evidence. You just ignore it. If you just ignore the evidence we present, then you can hardly complain that there is no evidence.


From what I see, the fossa, like all carnivals of Madagascar, belongs to a family unique to Madagascar. This particular animal takes on the role normally filled by cats on the mainland, so it developed cat-like features to fill that role. Having no cat in Madagascar, and there being a living to be earned by filling the role of a cat, it is not surprising that a creature evolved that superficially looked like a cat.

Why do you think the animals of Madagascar show evidence of being closely related to each other? I think it is because the island was isolated, and the few animals that were there evolved to perform many different roles. What is your explanation that the fossa is closely related to other Madagascar species, but is not so close to the cat, which it superficially resembles?


I am not arranging ancient reptiles, synapsids, therapsids, and mammals in an order. They were put in that order by whatever process layed down the fossil record. I have an explanation for that order. Evolution proceeded down that path. What is your explanation for that order?

I would ask what is your opinion about what is 'evolution', because the definition is vital to understanding transitional fossils.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I would ask what is your opinion about what is 'evolution', because the definition is vital to understanding transitional fossils.

How about you actually answer the questions that are asked of you, instead of you dodging them by asking questions of your own?