Evolution?

[juvenissun]

Nonsense. We know genes control morphology, that follows directly from the experiments we have performed with genetic modification. That we do not know exactly which genetic mechanisms are the most important (modifications in regulatory regions versus modifications of regulatory genes versus modifications of genes) but that morphology is determined by genetics is not controversial in the slightest.

Nonsense. Of course I know that "everything" of a life is controlled by genes.
But "how" does gene control everything, include morphology? I don't think anyone knows anything for sure. You tell me what kind of gene therapy people have performed for a purpose, and without creating any side effect?

 

[juvenissun]

Oh, I think you've got to familiarise with homeotic mutants. They are rather spectacular examples of genes controlling morphology. Here's one, probably one of the most widely known.

Antennapaedia:

(In case you don't read the link, where this picture comes from, the head on the left belongs to a normal fruit fly; the fly on the right has a mutation in the Antp gene. The mutant has legs in the place of antennae.)

By the way, when did we come to the conclusion that "we know very little"? Was this my warning that I know very little about sigma factors?

Yes, in the discussion of sigma factors, my understanding was that we know sigma factors may affect the morphology (of something). But we do not know how.

In the fruit fly example, the study is backwards (even it was the best we could do). We changed a gene to see what happened. That is easy. But when we see what changes have happened to a life and trying to figure out which gene mutation caused that, it may be very difficult, or not possible yet.

 

[juvenissun]

Leave biological terminology to the biologists PLEASE. Neither micro- nor macroevolution is defined by morphology. They are defined by the "threshold" amount of change that leads to speciation (and I really don't want to get into species definitions again, please).

This "threshold" could be anything including things like genome duplications (plants like to do that) and incompatible genital morphology (male insects often to have highly... artistic genitals...), but nothing in the definition says that it must be morphological. [Also, there isn't a set amount of genetic change that makes two species different.]

Thanks for the clarification. What you said is my understanding.
That is why I propose the term: nano-evolution. It is related to the change of genes, mutations, etc. It is the meaning of evolution a genetic scientist would give. From macro to micro, than now to nano. The scale also fits the content. If this term has not been used, I strongly recommend that genetic evolutionists consider that seriously.

 

[juvenissun]

If juvenissun is really interested (which i doubt) in biology and evolution, it might help if he actually understood some basic developmental biology, as in what genes do, maybe starting with genes like Hox genes.

Thanks. And you are right. I am not interested in "studying" it.
However, I do like to know more about anything in leisure conversation.

 

[eMesreveR]

Thanks. And you are right. I am not interested in "studying" it.
However, I do like to know more about anything in leisure conversation.

Yeah, Hox genes are pretty in depth. But it always helps to take a Bio 101 course before you decide the system that the Western World has used to advance for the past 150 or so years screwed up royally in this specific case.

 

[TheGnome]

Thanks for the clarification. What you said is my understanding.
That is why I propose the term: nano-evolution. It is related to the change of genes, mutations, etc. It is the meaning of evolution a genetic scientist would give. From macro to micro, than now to nano. The scale also fits the content. If this term has not been used, I strongly recommend that genetic evolutionists consider that seriously.

Do you have nothing to say about my post?

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48982014&postcount=528

 

[Bombila]

Nonsense. Of course I know that "everything" of a life is controlled by genes.
But "how" does gene control everything, include morphology? I don't think anyone knows anything for sure. You tell me what kind of gene therapy people have performed for a purpose, and without creating any side effect?

Learning about Hox genes might help you understand how genes control morphology. They are pretty important.

 

[Bombila]

Do you have nothing to say about my post?

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48982014&postcount=528

In juvienissun's defense, he is one against many, so has a lot of posts to answer - he does usually try to respond, in my experience.

 

[Blayz]

In juvienissun's defense, he is one against many, so has a lot of posts to answer - he does usually try to respond, in my experience.

...but when his responses include such gems as

That is why I propose the term: nano-evolution...If this term has not been used, I strongly recommend that genetic evolutionists consider that seriously.

You might be more glad that your post is never answered.

 

[Split Rock]

In the fruit fly example, the study is backwards (even it was the best we could do). We changed a gene to see what happened. That is easy. But when we see what changes have happened to a life and trying to figure out which gene mutation caused that, it may be very difficult, or not possible yet.

Yes, but we are working on that and making good progress (starting with genome sequencing). What does this have to do with your differerntiation between eukaryotic evolution and prokaryotic evolution?

 

[Blayz]

Nonsense. Of course I know that "everything" of a life is controlled by genes.
But "how" does gene control everything, include morphology? I don't think anyone knows anything for sure. You tell me what kind of gene therapy people have performed for a purpose, and without creating any side effect?

Ahh the joys of google.

 

[Tomk80]

Nonsense. Of course I know that "everything" of a life is controlled by genes.
But "how" does gene control everything, include morphology? I don't think anyone knows anything for sure. You tell me what kind of gene therapy people have performed for a purpose, and without creating any side effect?

Irrelevant to the point at hand. If genes control morphology, than changes in morphology are an indirect reflection of changes in genes. Hence, paleontologists can study the "change in genetics in a population over time" by indirectly by studying the change in morphology of fossils.

That we can do this is corroborated by the fact that genetic cladistic trees form a very good reflection of cladistic trees based on morphology.

 

[Tomk80]

Thanks for the clarification. What you said is my understanding.
That is why I propose the term: nano-evolution. It is related to the change of genes, mutations, etc. It is the meaning of evolution a genetic scientist would give. From macro to micro, than now to nano. The scale also fits the content. If this term has not been used, I strongly recommend that genetic evolutionists consider that seriously.

Micro and macro-evolution both are already related to changes in genes. There is no need for a new term that describes what other terms already describe perfectly well.

 

[juvenissun]

Irrelevant to the point at hand. If genes control morphology, than changes in morphology are an indirect reflection of changes in genes. Hence, paleontologists can study the "change in genetics in a population over time" by indirectly by studying the change in morphology of fossils.

That we can do this is corroborated by the fact that genetic cladistic trees form a very good reflection of cladistic trees based on morphology.

Yeah, that is your dream. And it is also paleontologist's dream.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Yeah, that is your dream. And it is also paleontologist's dream.

At least if it is a dream, it is based on reality; unlike you and your creationist brothering who dreams are based on magical mystical biblical horse manure.

And Juv’y please back up your statements in the Miocene thread.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you have nothing to say about my post?

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48982014&postcount=528

I read it. I thought either that your concerns have been addressed, or there was nothing to comment on (means I agreed). What did I miss?

 

[Tomk80]

Yeah, that is your dream. And it is also paleontologist's dream.

It's not a "dream". The whole reason why the twin-nested hierarchy is called that way, is because morphology and genetics produce the same trees. The results are in, and have been in for a long time already.

 

[juvenissun]

At least if it is a dream, it is based on reality; unlike you and your creationist brothering who dreams are based on magical mystical biblical horse manure.

And Juv’y please back up your statements in the Miocene thread.

See, when I talked about geology, a whole bunch of people asked me to "back up" what I said. But when I talked about biology, nobody asked me to do that. This demonstrated the level of knowledge and the level of expression. I talked HIGH in geology, because I know the stuff. Just like what I did in this forum, if you do not know what I am talking about, you should ask. I tend not to react to a request on backing up what I already know.

 

[Tomk80]

See, when I talked about geology, a whole bunch of people asked me to "back up" what I said. But when I talked about biology, nobody asked me to do that. This demonstrated the level of knowledge and the level of expression. I talked HIGH in geology, because I know the stuff.

No, it was because you made an assertion, but failed to back it up.

Just like what I did in this forum, if you do not know what I am talking about, you should ask. I tend not to react to a request on backing up what I already know. Why should I lower myself to satisfy your pride of ignorance?

This is a discussion forum, not an empty assertion forum. If you want to make empty assertions, go somewhere else.

 

[Bombila]

FYI, the book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne will be available in January, and by all accounts is an easily read and understood careful collection of all the evidence for evolution. This may be a good book for people with a limited science background, though of course I haven't read it, and am depending on reviewers I trust.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670020532/pharyngula-20