-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
How polyploids happen
- Thread starter npetreley
- Start date
Yes, you're right. The information was right there in the diagrams I included, but when I attempted to condense it, I explained the process out of order. (By the way, I included Aneuploids in what I was referring to when I said that plants tend to be tolerant of these things but can be infertile. I simply wanted to keep things in layman's terms and not have to differentiate between things like Aneuploids and other chromosome abnormalities.)
What I should have said was that, depending on where things proceed from there, it sometimes results in a polyploid, which is double the number of chromosomes and sometimes produces a robust fertile plant, etc. Yes, that's still not strictly correct, since it's not exactly double every time, and interbreeding polyploids can jack up the number of chromosomes in various ways, but these issues are covered fairly well in the linked document I included and other documents. Since my point has nothing to do with the specific number of chromosomes, I didn't go into that level of detail. My apologies for not perfectly regurgitating what I felt were irrelevant details from the sites.
What argument? When did I ever pose that argument?
Huh? When did I say that?
Chill, Rufus. You're anticipating and trying to head off the wrong argument. I not going there, although if someone would just submit a series of transitionals it might be fun to speculate based on this argument. But nobody seems to be able to do that, so I guess we can't play with that idea.
True from a technical perspective of how reproduction produces polyploids, but very misleading. Being an uneducated programmer moron, however, I'm still thinking in much simpler terms than you are, so you need to stop attaching technical terms to things and saying they're equivalent, because to us morons, a hybrid is not the same thing as an autopolyploid. The autopolyploid simply duplicates its own chromosomes. The hybrid combines chromosomes from two or more species, which is a process that is more likely to produce a morphology change. It's still not central to my point, but feel free to obsess on it, because it is very amusing to see how desperate you folks are to head off anything that might be damaging to evolution, like claims that the two are identical when the outcome can be significantly different.
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
You are complaining that I didnt address the separate mechanism for allopolyploidy when it in fact doesnt exist.
No, I'm complaining because that's NOT what I asked for but that's what you kept supplying. I asked you NOT to address it from the perspective of the genetic mechanism and tell everyone in layman's terms how it HAPPENS. You got as close as farming and cultivated plants, but neglected to mention the fact that it most commonly HAPPENS when plants cross-breed -- whether through cultivation or naturally. Why would you dance around that? I have no idea, since I'm a moron, so let's move on to the next question.
FINALLY - next question:
Did this same process contribute to the evolution of reptiles to mammals? In other words, did the series of transitionals in the pretty picture come about due to cross-breeding (or even autopolyploidy)? If so, can you explain how polyploids had a role in this process?
If not, can you tell us what the genetic mechanism of mutation was that caused the evolution of reptiles into mammals? Assuming you don't continue to obscure all the information with jargon and actually get to the point, then can you also tell us what you theorize (in simple layman's terms), what the physical action IS that is responsible for the genetic mutations involved in this transition? If it is not cross-breeding, then what happened that caused the mutation? And if there are multiple causes, you please address them all? I'm looking for simple explanations in layman's terms, in the same sense that cross-breeding leads to allopolyploids, which is believed to be the most common way polyploids are produced. So please tell us HOW these mutations happen (cross-breeding, sunspots, whatever) . And then tell us what the believed frequency is for these mutations, such as MOSTLY cross-breeding, SOMETIMES sunspots, etc.
Can you or can you not provide the kinds of series of transitionals from 99.9% of the fossil record that I requested? If you can, great. If not, and you don't see the relevance of failing to be able to provide this data, then perhaps you're not as educated and intelligent as you give yourself credit.
Upvote
0
A chase through three threads for this???
I better save my response to this for when my blood pressure comes back into the normal range...
I better save my response to this for when my blood pressure comes back into the normal range...
Upvote
0
Ok... having cooled down a bit, I think I can give the non-answer to this question:
I don't think that it is possible to take a transition that occurred in the so far distant past as the synapsid-mammal one and identify the various mutations involved. You might have better luck if you asked about the hominid transition. I know I couldn't answer, but at least the gentic differences are small enough and recent enough to at least be subject to estimation by someone who works in the field of paleoanthropology (edited to add: and has some experience in the field of genetics as well.)
A quick follow up:
I already know that you won't until at least eight of us are victims of brain damage from banging our head against the wall, but, pretty please, could you tell us why this question is relevant???
Upvote
0
Wow, a non-answer. I haven't gotten any of those before.
Then why do you speculate on such things and come to the conclusion that they work?
You take a mosquito that evolves into a mosquito and a bird with varying beak size and extrapolate evolution from those -- yet you won't risk speculating on what kind of mutations took place and what might have caused them?
And I could have sworn you guys discussed this in depth in other threads, with the evolutionists insisting that certain types of mutations caused increase in information. You seemed to know an awful lot about mutations then. What happened to all that knowledge? Did it disappear with all the evidence for transitions in 99.9% of the fossil record? Perhaps you'll dig it up someday and let me know the answer to my question.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 21
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I think Rufus is saying he won't try to make a specific claim about which of several mechanisms led to a specific development... which strikes me as reasonable. It would be sufficient to show that the various options available would be sufficient to the task, it's not necessary to identify the exact path.
Upvote
0
Don't worry, Jerry. The fact that you believe evolution is true tells me it's already too late.
What cracks me up is this. It took days, and THE PEOPLE WHO ONE WOULD ASSUME KNEW ABOUT IT refused to mention allopolyploidy and the simple action of cross-breeding. And you have the gall to accuse me of being the one who is dragging this out?
Upvote
0
Great! I'm still waiting for a series of transitionals from 99.9% of the fossil record. But I figured out how long it will probably take and came up with an activity to keep me busy. Care to join me?
99,999,999,999,701 bottles of beer on the wall, 99,999,999,999,701 bottles of beer...
Upvote
0
1) The trilobite series is a series of transitionals from 99.9% of the fossil record, so you are through waiting (Matter of fact, there were also some other transitional series posted there too).
2) No one promised you we would meet the bogus details of your challenge, so wait for ever if you want to. I think you should take a vow of silence until someone spoon feeds this to you just as a symbolic gesture... please?
3) You did promise us you would explain what the living heck you were thinking about when you asked us to pick fossils that weren't polyploid in your bogus challenge. I hope you will at least fulfill this promise before you start your vow of silence..
Upvote
0
PERSON - you know the guy who made the bogus challenge to begin with, and who can exclusively be expected to know the relevance of its criteria..
DESPITE NEVER HAVING BEEN ASKED ABOUT IT??? HOW CAN YOU REFUSE TO DO SOMETHING NO ONE HAS ASKED YOU TO DO?!?!?!
OH YES I DO! FOR INSTANCE - YOU STILL HAVEN'T EXPLAINED YOURSELF...
Upvote
0
Who is speculating about anything?
No we don't. You haven't bothered to learn much about how we know about evolution obviously, but seeing it occur in real-time is only part of the reason we know about it.
What have you been drinking?? It was creationists, and only creationists who made any claims at all about information. Showing the lack of merit in their claims, and showing they chose a poor and immeasurable quantity to make claims about in the first place is not the same as making our own insistent claims about that poor and immeasurable quantity.
I think it disappeared when the genes that you are interested in asking questions about failed to fossilize with the organisms they acted upon a few million years ago.
The evidence for fossil transitions, or the answer to your bogus challenge? Despite whatever delusions you may have that reality adjusts to your conception of it, the two are very, very different things.
Upvote
0
Yes, because you kept asking about polyploidy, and what the mechanism was, and you kept getting the same answer. That's because the mechanism that causes polyploidy is the same whether they are autopolyploids or allopolyploids.
In short, this drug on for days because you were looking for an answer to a question you refused to ask.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
