EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
algae ARE plants...
giving off oxygen is a function of photosynthesis... by definition, any organism that photosynthesises is a plant
Upvote
0
-
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.
What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?
- Thread starter Loudmouth
- Start date
- Status
giving off oxygen is a function of photosynthesis... by definition, any organism that photosynthesises is a plant
Skaloop
Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
- May 10, 2006
- 16,332
- 899
- 48
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-NDP
In terms of green, leafy sorts of plants or grasses (kinda the layperson's definition of plant), do you know whether they came along before or after animals made it up onto land? I still suspect they came before, else what would the herbivores eat?
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
yes, plants where on the land before animals... what we call the "carboniferous period" is from the period when the land was populated by plants and they became coal... long before terestrial animals
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
No, plants occupied the land first. There is good fossil evidence for the evolution of land plants during the early Silurian Period. Some argue for an earlier evolution during the Ordovician Period, but this evidence is more controversial.
You are correct, sir. Flowering plants evolved late, during the Cretaceous.
In terms of total oxygen production, you are correct. Most oxygen today is produced by algae. That is because there is such a large biomass of algae in the oceans.
True, algae are members of the Plant Kingdom. It is not true, however, that only plants photosynthesize. Some bacteria, such as cyanobacteria (or "blue-green algae," which are not really algae at all) and purple photosynthetic bacteria make use of photosynthesis as well.
Yes, they came first, and were followed by scorpions and insects.
Upvote
0
NailsII
Life-long student of biological science
What you mean is that we do not get our morals from the bible.
As i have tried to demonstrate, the morals of the old testament are rape, pillage, slavery, muder, infantacide and make-beleive.
Oh, I guess a little love thy neighbour (or love thy fellow Jew, I believe is the literal translation) and eye for an eye....
Humans get their morality from mankind, from the society they grow up in - that is your biggest conditioner.
Obviously, you got away with asking silly questions over and over again which must have got you out of trouble as a child because you can't seem the break the habit.
And can't see the point of Ken Miller's presentation?
Now that's got to be a fairy story.
It is as compelling as can be.
He is a big gun because he destroyed Behe's lies with evidence - and changed his mind in the process.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Professor Richard Dawkins.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Yes, true... but not wishing to get TOO technical... anything that utilises chlorophyl for photosynthesis is a plant...
Upvote
0
NailsII
Life-long student of biological science
More evidence.....
Gene regulation in humans is closer than expected to simple organisms
Using a novel method developed to identify reliably functional binding motifs, researchers from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel have performed a genome-wide study of functional human transcription factor binding sites that encompasses nearly ten thousand genes and four hundred known binding motifs. The study appears in the Aug. 29 issue of the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE.
Gene networks are some of the most basic features of a living organism. An external or internal stimulus activates some genes, which in turn control others genes whose activity turns on or off various biological processes (such as the cell cycle, energy production, DNA repair, cellular suicide etc).
Many of the regulatory functions are controlled by attachment of special proteins (transcription factors) to 6 - 10 nucleotide long binding sequences located on the DNA, activating or suppressing expression of the regulated gene. Our ability to identify these binding sites is essential to understand the way biological networks operate.
As the genomes of various organisms became known, it turned out that complex and simple organisms differ less than anticipated in the sizes and makeup of their genomes; complexity of an organism is now believed to be reflected mainly in the manner in which expression is regulated. According to consensus, transcription of human genes is regulated predominantly by factors that bind to sites whose distances from the transcription start site may vary widely and reach tens of thousands of base pairs.
To test the validity of this belief/consensus, researchers from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel have performed a genome-wide study of functional human transcription factor binding sites that encompasses nearly ten thousand genes and four hundred known binding motifs. Using a novel method that was developed to identify reliably functional binding motifs, they discovered that in human (and mouse) a surprisingly large fraction of the functional binding sites was concentrated very close to the transcription start site. Hence on the basis of currently available data it seems that the most basic underlying principles and strategies used by the genomes of higher organisms to regulate gene expression are quite close to those used by simple organisms like bacteria and yeast.
The discovery and the method will allow more focused and reliable search for transcriptional binding sites and hence may turn into a major tool to be used in the quest for the transcriptional networks whose function governs all cellular processes, and whose breakdown causes complex diseases. It will generate progress in establishing the principles used by the transcription process in high organism, and allow a more focused search for the origins of their complexity.
Source: Public Library of Science
reposted from:
http://www.physorg.com/news107617460.html
Gene regulation in humans is closer than expected to simple organisms
Using a novel method developed to identify reliably functional binding motifs, researchers from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel have performed a genome-wide study of functional human transcription factor binding sites that encompasses nearly ten thousand genes and four hundred known binding motifs. The study appears in the Aug. 29 issue of the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE.
Gene networks are some of the most basic features of a living organism. An external or internal stimulus activates some genes, which in turn control others genes whose activity turns on or off various biological processes (such as the cell cycle, energy production, DNA repair, cellular suicide etc).
Many of the regulatory functions are controlled by attachment of special proteins (transcription factors) to 6 - 10 nucleotide long binding sequences located on the DNA, activating or suppressing expression of the regulated gene. Our ability to identify these binding sites is essential to understand the way biological networks operate.
As the genomes of various organisms became known, it turned out that complex and simple organisms differ less than anticipated in the sizes and makeup of their genomes; complexity of an organism is now believed to be reflected mainly in the manner in which expression is regulated. According to consensus, transcription of human genes is regulated predominantly by factors that bind to sites whose distances from the transcription start site may vary widely and reach tens of thousands of base pairs.
To test the validity of this belief/consensus, researchers from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel have performed a genome-wide study of functional human transcription factor binding sites that encompasses nearly ten thousand genes and four hundred known binding motifs. Using a novel method that was developed to identify reliably functional binding motifs, they discovered that in human (and mouse) a surprisingly large fraction of the functional binding sites was concentrated very close to the transcription start site. Hence on the basis of currently available data it seems that the most basic underlying principles and strategies used by the genomes of higher organisms to regulate gene expression are quite close to those used by simple organisms like bacteria and yeast.
The discovery and the method will allow more focused and reliable search for transcriptional binding sites and hence may turn into a major tool to be used in the quest for the transcriptional networks whose function governs all cellular processes, and whose breakdown causes complex diseases. It will generate progress in establishing the principles used by the transcription process in high organism, and allow a more focused search for the origins of their complexity.
Source: Public Library of Science
reposted from:
http://www.physorg.com/news107617460.html
Upvote
0
Actual paper
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000807
Bioinformatics FTW!
Upvote
0
BigDug
Active Member
I dont have enough of a post count to post images yet(I need 100), so here is a url:
http://nitro777.googlepages.com/forum.jpg/forum-full.jpg
Hopefully someone with over 100 posts will be kind enough to put it here so everyone can see it, I slaved hard over a paint program to create it.
So the next few paragraphs will reference this chart in the above URL.
OK. So here is the distribution chart I had been talking about reproducing. This chart shows
what a population geneticist by the name of M.Kimura had originally published to show the real distribution of mutation in the human population. If anyone has a better Kinura curve please post a reference to it, this chart has only been adapted from another chart which was adapted from the original.
As can be seen from Kimura's curve, most mutations are negative and pile up near the 0 mark, or the completely neutral mark. Kimura is famous for showing that there is a zone of "near-neutrality" where mutations are "effectively neutral"-meaning that they are are not subject to selection. Bear in mind that not all mutations are subject to natural selection, the reason being is that natural selection works on the level of the nucleotide, NOT the organism level.
*There is also a reaon why the curve never makes it to the actual 0 point but it is mathematical and I dont know what it is right now.
The size of the shaded block was calculated by Kimura to be only a minimal estimate of the "no selection" range based on the size of the population. There are other factors which can change the shape of this box which I'll look at later.
So whats the point? The point is that evolutionary theorists consider everything in the shaded box to be redefined as "completely neutral" and thereby dismissed. Everything to the far left of the shaded box is entirely eliminated due to natural selection. Therefore they are free to argue that no matter how rare beneficial mutations might be, (to the right of the box), there is still enough time and selection power left over to use them for the building blocks of evolution.
NOW. Lets think about these beneficial mutations for a moment, and I use that term beneficial for any sort of mutation that would help life live stronger or better somehow. Where are these mutations on the above Kimura chart? Non-existant. For some reason or another Kimura never filled in that curve. Most likely he didnt make a curve for that side because it would be so relatively small as to not even justify a line.
The best estimates of beneficial to deleterious mutations weigh in at around one million to one (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998) The actual rate may be so low as to thwart the actual measurement(Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998) Therefore the curve really cant be drawn small enough however I drew a small one in blue just to be representative.
===========
Ok. Next I'll show that mutations can indeed cause a "loss of information" and that it is not just a creationist wording, but that it also exists in many science books and publications as well. But more importantly I'll discuss the relevance of it.
Of course I'll also build upon more of this genetic entropy hypothesis also, while at the same time trying to at least read, but definitely get to any feedback I might get.
Then I am in the process of looking at the twin-nested hierarchy and gene redundancy discussions to formulate a stronger synthesis of those things.
http://nitro777.googlepages.com/forum.jpg/forum-full.jpg
Hopefully someone with over 100 posts will be kind enough to put it here so everyone can see it, I slaved hard over a paint program to create it.
So the next few paragraphs will reference this chart in the above URL.
OK. So here is the distribution chart I had been talking about reproducing. This chart shows
what a population geneticist by the name of M.Kimura had originally published to show the real distribution of mutation in the human population. If anyone has a better Kinura curve please post a reference to it, this chart has only been adapted from another chart which was adapted from the original.
As can be seen from Kimura's curve, most mutations are negative and pile up near the 0 mark, or the completely neutral mark. Kimura is famous for showing that there is a zone of "near-neutrality" where mutations are "effectively neutral"-meaning that they are are not subject to selection. Bear in mind that not all mutations are subject to natural selection, the reason being is that natural selection works on the level of the nucleotide, NOT the organism level.
*There is also a reaon why the curve never makes it to the actual 0 point but it is mathematical and I dont know what it is right now.
The size of the shaded block was calculated by Kimura to be only a minimal estimate of the "no selection" range based on the size of the population. There are other factors which can change the shape of this box which I'll look at later.
So whats the point? The point is that evolutionary theorists consider everything in the shaded box to be redefined as "completely neutral" and thereby dismissed. Everything to the far left of the shaded box is entirely eliminated due to natural selection. Therefore they are free to argue that no matter how rare beneficial mutations might be, (to the right of the box), there is still enough time and selection power left over to use them for the building blocks of evolution.
NOW. Lets think about these beneficial mutations for a moment, and I use that term beneficial for any sort of mutation that would help life live stronger or better somehow. Where are these mutations on the above Kimura chart? Non-existant. For some reason or another Kimura never filled in that curve. Most likely he didnt make a curve for that side because it would be so relatively small as to not even justify a line.
The best estimates of beneficial to deleterious mutations weigh in at around one million to one (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998) The actual rate may be so low as to thwart the actual measurement(Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998) Therefore the curve really cant be drawn small enough however I drew a small one in blue just to be representative.
===========
Ok. Next I'll show that mutations can indeed cause a "loss of information" and that it is not just a creationist wording, but that it also exists in many science books and publications as well. But more importantly I'll discuss the relevance of it.
Of course I'll also build upon more of this genetic entropy hypothesis also, while at the same time trying to at least read, but definitely get to any feedback I might get.
Then I am in the process of looking at the twin-nested hierarchy and gene redundancy discussions to formulate a stronger synthesis of those things.
Upvote
0
BigDug
Active Member
No it doesn't say that at all, it said that the light from the heavens was put in the earth's atmosphere on the fourth day.
"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night..." Gen 1:14
The sun already had existed according to Gen.1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and earth"
In that verse the "heavens" were mentioned before the earth.
Light was added on the 4th day of that particular dispensation, there could have been something covering the atmosphere that would let light in, some type of gas or cloud...
Light was added to the atmosphere the fourth day, NOT the sun, there is a big difference.
Nope, refer to above statement.
[/quote] Quote:
nope. Just this particular group of whales and birds, there could have been other groups created and died off far before this creation week. This creation week is not explicitly stated in the Bible as the only iteration of creation, there is room for others.
Once again, it doesnt say that stars were embedded in the "firmament"(atmosphere), it only says that the light from those stars were put in the heavens. The light was always there, but perhaps it had been shielded from the earth, maybe a meteor had hit the earth previously (mexico?) and shielded the atmosphere from light.
The water "above the firmament" is the water contained in clouds. Its as simple as that. The firmament itself is the lower atmosphere.
Upvote
0
Skaloop
Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
- May 10, 2006
- 16,332
- 899
- 48
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-NDP
And that all works if you fiddle with what it actually says. But the start of this argument was whether it was all literal, and by any and all measures outside of the Bible itself, it is not literal.
Oh, and also, you're wrong anyway. Genesis is in no practical way correct or accurate. No matter how much you twist the words.
Upvote
0
I dont have enough of a post count to post images yet(I need 100), so here is a url:
http://nitro777.googlepages.com/forum.jpg/forum-full.jpg
Hopefully someone with over 100 posts will be kind enough to put it here so everyone can see it, I slaved hard over a paint program to create it.
So the next few paragraphs will reference this chart in the above URL.
Well I will if no one else does, I am almost at 100!
Please give a full description of the axes, and please supply a reference to the original paper in which the curve was published, and please supply the equation.
natural selection works at the level of the population. Lethal or severely deleterious mutation work at the level of the organism and are dependent on the timing of the mutation and its location.
Because its an asymptotic equation, at a guess.
Journal, Issue, Page number thanks.
You see, here's the thing, I cannot possibly consider your conclusions unless I have access to the original data.
It's a great start though, well done.
Upvote
0
MarcusHill
Educator and learner
- May 1, 2007
- 976
- 76
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Hopefully someone with over 100 posts will be kind enough to put it here so everyone can see it, I slaved hard over a paint program to create it.
Here you go:
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
right... so later in Genesis when it talks about God opening the windows in the firmament to let the water through to cause the flood... hmmm... maybe you want to rethink your previous
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
