evolution, the facts that inform the theory'?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman

antibiotics destroyed their wings

Just as stupid an analogy as the car but for a different reason. Ducks don't have to fly in order to reproduce and the acquired trait would not be inherited.

attacked their shells and the poor turtles were naked

Ditto. Stupid analogy. The trait would not be inherited.

The antibiotics attacked and destroyed their trunks, trunk less elephants

Ditto. Stupid analogy.

What would be even more stupid is someone who thought an analogy would be a perfect explanation

Well that's what I would figure

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman

antibiotics destroyed their wings

Just as stupid an analogy as the car but for a different reason. Ducks don't have to fly in order to reproduce and the acquired trait would not be inherited.

attacked their shells and the poor turtles were naked

Ditto. Stupid analogy. The trait would not be inherited.

The antibiotics attacked and destroyed their trunks, trunk less elephants

Ditto. Stupid analogy.

What would be even more stupid is someone who thought an analogy would be a perfect explanation

Well that's what I would figure

originally posted by: bulwarkz
No he said your example you used was for deevolution.
Which is weird because you imply you do not believe in devoltion, which is weird, because you imply that you believe in evolution.
Weirda reply to: Akragon

You are very confused about why scientists say that there is no such thing as 'devolution'.

Evolution is 'change over time'. Time flows in one direction (at least in the macro-verse - we can ignore weird quantum stuff for this discussion). If you go for a run around an oval or a walk around the block and end up in the same place you started have you gone backwards? No - you have gone forwards the whole time. Sure, you might have turned around half way through, but you have still 'gone somewhere', and then 'gone somewhere else', and then 'gone somewhere else again', and so on.

So, populations of organisms change. They don't 'unchange'. If an population's DNA changes from Version A to Version B, that is evolution. If the population's DNA then changes from Version B to Version C, that is evolution, and Version C is two steps from Version A. If Version C happens, for whatever reason, to be identical to Version A the organism has still 'evolved' twice: From A to B to C.

Even if you decide to relabel Version C to Version A because they are identical, the organism has still evolved from B to A. It has changed over time from B to A; it has not 'unchanged', it has changed each time.

I'm going to draw up a bit of an imaginary scenario here, please bear with me.

Lets suppose we have some population of beetles next to a stream running through a forest, the beetles like to live under the tree bark. Normally, the beetles can cross the stream and exchange mates because the stream dries up on a seasonal basis and just at the right time of the year for mate hunting, so it is one population of beetles on both sides of the stream. But then a family of beavers moves in, dams the stream, and floods the little valley year round. Since the beetles cannot swim we now have TWO populations, one on the sunny side and one on the shady side. Eventually, the two populations evolve differently, Side A can only live where there is plenty of sunshine, Side B can only live in the shade. Further down the track, the two populations may change so much they cannot breed with each other and thus form two species.

But before they separate into species, there is a forest fire that discourages the Beavers, and they move out, leaving their dam to deteriorate, collapse, and restore the rhythm of the stream. The surviving beetles, from whichever population, can pass across the stream again. Within a few generations the populations have remixed, and every beetle in the combined population can live happily on either side of the stream.

So this is an example of evolution from A to B/C to D, where A and D are identical.

Of course they are not really identical because there has been other evolutionary changes as well, but for the practical purposes of this story, they are. The population didn't 'devolve', there is no going back, it just changed twice.

a reply to: Raggedyman

What would be even more stupid is someone who thought an analogy would be a perfect explanation

Yours is not an explanation at all, never mind perfect.

The bacteria that survived had a trait which made them resistant to the antibiotic. They did not learn how to survive, it was in their nature to survive. That's why they survived to reproduce. The bacteria which did not have the trait did not survive so they could not reproduce. After a while, only the bacteria which had the resistant trait were present.

Evolution in action. But you don't understand the concept (as simple as it is) and don't pretend to. Instead you come up with stupid analogies which have nothing to do with the process, further demonstrating your ignorance. Willful or otherwise.

a reply to: Phage

Was one of those his explanation to me? LOL

If Adam was type A-, Eve was B-, Abel and later Seth were AB- and Cain was O-. Tell about your theory of inbreeding from there o ignorant one.

a reply to: bulwarkz

Holy Heck! You have a blood sample from Adam, Eve, and the boys? Then you must know where the boys wives came from? Please tell us, I've been waiting for that answer since I was in 6th grade at least.

a reply to: Phage

No, like ak, you are not doing your homework phage
and I can't be bothered saying the same thing over and over

Go read the paper about the antibiotics effect on the bacteria that grew in the antibiotic

It proved nothing, certainly not evolution

The bacteria developed a resistance to the antibiotic but that disabled the bacteria in other ways.

You may want to call that evolution, I call it adaptation or micro evolution

and as much as you may want to bandy the word stupid about, I havnt seen any science, havnt seen you argue the agar bacteria antibiotic experiment and the outcome of the condition of the bacteria with me
Go on, argue with the results, throw them in my face
That will make one of us look stupid

Here I am, still, waiting, it's public record the results of the bacteria

Stupid old me, asking you, so, what's it to be, disappear as usual

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Phage

What about those DNA defects that have been around for a while? If it were simple mutations, would there be a specific classification for certain defects? Like Progeria or Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) where the child usually doesn't live to adulthood.

First: You answered your own question in part: 'the child usually doesn't live to adulthood'. Those that do survive to adulthood may pass on their genes, especially in the modern world where we may have effective treatments.

Second: the presence of the genome does not necessarily mean the every carrier will get the disease at all let alone to the extent of non-survivability.

Third: Many genetic diseases require that BOTH parents carry the gene(s) that produce the disease. For example, the gene mutation that can result in sickle cell anemia must be carried by both parents to produce a child with sickle cell anemia. The mutation stays in the gene pool because it provides other benefits to the carrier. In this case, the sickle cell anemia mutation provides an advantageous protection against malaria (not perfect protection, but better than without it). Again, it is only when both parents have it that it becomes a potential problem for the child.

My appologies for my ignorance here, but do the other primates have the same type of genetic defects? Say among chimpanzees which have 96% similar genomes to humans. Do they develop cancer at the same rates of humans?

Yes, of course they do.

Edit: I didn't mean that chimps get cancer at the same rate as humans, I doubt it because they don't smoke or sit in polluting traffic all day, or eat imitation food, or any of that stuff. What I meant was that chimps and other animals get genetic diseases too.

Every organism (without qualification) mutates from generation to generation, some of those mutations are good, some are bad, some are indifferent. Bad mutations might be bad because they inject disease, deformity, simple disadvantage, whatever. I repeat: this is true of EVERY organism, plant, animal, slime mold, whatever.

a reply to: Raggedyman

“This is a stunning demonstration of how quickly microbes evolve,” said Lieberman, who was a graduate student in the Kishony lab at the time of the research and is now a postdoctoral research fellow at MIT. "When shown the video, evolutionary biologists immediately recognize concepts they’ve thought about in the abstract, while nonspecialists immediately begin to ask really good questions.”

hms.harvard.edu...

arguing with someone with the education of a 12 year old is fun though...

But... like you've stated... its public record...

just another example of many which shows you didn't read Squat...

And for the record... you can zero credibility in any science topic as the record shows over and over again

you've demonstrated yet again that you haven't got even the slightest clue about this or any other subject in science

Though at least you got flags for shear amusement

well done

a reply to: Raggedyman

As always, you can show this right. Not just state it. You can show why it "proves nothing" of course. Otherwise you are deliberately avoiding being honest in your own thread. Just like you avoid every single example posted.

Indeed prove you've read that paper Phage posted.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman

What would be even more stupid is someone who thought an analogy would be a perfect explanation

Yours is not an explanation at all, never mind perfect.

The bacteria that survived had a trait which made them resistant to the antibiotic. They did not learn how to survive, it was in their nature to survive. That's why they survived to reproduce. The bacteria which did not have the trait did not survive so they could not reproduce. After a while, only the bacteria which had the resistant trait were present.

Evolution in action. But you don't understand the concept (as simple as it is) and don't pretend to. Instead you come up with stupid analogies which have nothing to do with the process, further demonstrating your ignorance. Willful or otherwise.

I will dumb it down for you phage

Did the bacteria gain genetic information or lose genetic information after the antibiotics were introduced

What has to happen for evolution to occur re genetic information

originally posted by: rnaa

If Adam was type A-, Eve was B-, Abel and later Seth were AB- and Cain was O-. Tell about your theory of inbreeding from there o ignorant one.

a reply to: bulwarkz

Holy Heck! You have a blood sample from Adam, Eve, and the boys? Then you must know where the boys wives came from? Please tell us, I've been waiting for that answer since I was in 6th grade at least.

The boys were superfenducation twins, each with a twin sister.
Cain either took his sister as a wife (lucifer i believe her name was, lucy for short), or he took a wife from the preadamic races. I lean towards lucy going with him. Maybe even Abel's twin. Or another of Eves daughters? There are extrabiblical sources that give us ideas

a reply to: rnaa

Damn do they have any other genetic samples? Mythras, Jesus? Dynosis? Hell Alexander the Great? Imagine if they had the first instances of a mutation we see today

a reply to: Raggedyman

Come now Raggy, at least stay in topic in your own thread. You have not read any of the examples I posted You never read examples.

Oh and 11 really does want you to stop using his nickname in vain.

a reply to: Akragon

i am just going to report your attacks to the moderators, it's not how it works ak

This isn't how adults act, you drag me down to your level and it's sad

a reply to: Raggedyman

So you did not read what Alragpm posted did you? Its on-topic. So go read it.

a reply to: Raggedyman

report away... You're the one that started tossing insults from the get go

im just stating the clear facts...

can't help it IF you don't like them...

again... Funny though

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

As always, you can show this right. Not just state it. You can show why it "proves nothing" of course. Otherwise you are deliberately avoiding being honest in your own thread. Just like you avoid every single example posted.

Indeed prove you've read that paper Phage posted.

Did the bacteria gain or lose genetic information?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

So you did not read what Alragpm posted did you? Its on-topic. So go read it.

I am going to start a new thread and base it on the Petri Dish experiment and if the bacteria gained new genetic information

Because you all line up and act like you know something and you havnt a clue

Did the bacteria gain new genetic information in accordance with evolution
It's not a trick question

Ok, I spoke to quickly without thinking it through. I tend to do that with Josh

I want to change my answer to involution.
I realized that today when I was working.
Involution, final answer
a reply to: rnaa