Originally posted by timebombtedrandom is not completely random! By random I mean there are fluctuations.
Some papers provide evidence to suggest mutation rates are higher in areas of recombination......... additionally during replication the lagging strand has a higher rate of mutation........ also purine-purine and purine-pyrimidine mutation rates can vary significantly.
So if we look at the genome not all mutations will be randomly located. As some ele ...[text shortened]... at fundamentally evolution is not a random process, this of course does not mean DNA has a plan.
Of course I know there are correlations of all kinds. Correlations don't stop a process from being stochastic.
But I'm sure we agree on all of this, we just have a wording problem , specialy with the word "random".
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
Originally posted by amannionPeople are stupid!
Why does evolution have to be antagonistic to religion?
There are many scientists, including evolutionary biologists who are religious - and yet a small and very vocal minority seems to believe that to accept evolution means rejecting their religious beliefs, and so reject evolution.
Why is this?
Does it have to be the case?
I can't myself see any confl ...[text shortened]... s, other than when the Bible is read literally which is clearly a ridiculous viewpoint to take.
Originally posted by serigadoAgreed I'm taking "random" a little too literally, I suppose I don't like the use of the word in regards to the evolutionary process.
random is not completely random! By random I mean there are fluctuations.
Of course I know there are correlations of all kinds. Correlations don't stop a process from being stochastic.
But I'm sure we agree on all of this, we just have a wording problem , specialy with the word "random".
Agree with your end comment regarding stochasticity.
Do you work in the field of biological sciences?
Originally posted by KellyJayDid you misunderstand the question or are you dodging the issue? What may or may not have happened in the past to ground squirrels is totally irrelevant and I am not suggesting anything happened or did not happen.
1. How do you know the normal ground squirrel came first?
2. What if the flying squirrel came first it would be easier to lose ability
to glide than to aquire it.
3. Goes to 1 and 2
I am inquiring about what you believe is possible in a controlled breeding environment set up by man. You claim that certain things are impossible and I want to narrow it down so that I understand your position better.
4. no
OK.
6. Do you think that a flapping flying squirrel can develop better flying ability?
7. Do you think a bat with poor flying ability can develop better flying ability?
8. Are there any particular features of flight currently possessed by bats that you think a flying creature with all but that ability could never evolve?
5. I think if not, but go for it. I'd say it depends if you pick one that
used to be able to fly maybe.
Kelly
What do you mean by "one that used to be able to fly?" Are you saying that some bird are descended from non-flying birds as created by God? If so, is there any way to tell which these are?
9. Some domesticated chickens are incapable of flight. Do you think it is possible for man, with controlled breading to breed back the ability to fly?
10. If yes to 9. above, do you believe that the ability was never actually lost in the genes or could it possibly be recreated by careful breading?
Originally posted by timebombtedyes 🙂 Precisely in mathematical models of biological systems (exact and stochastic ones)
Agreed I'm taking "random" a little too literally, I suppose I don't like the use of the word in regards to the evolutionary process.
Agree with your end comment regarding stochasticity.
Do you work in the field of biological sciences?
It's kind of the application of physics and mathematics to biology.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not attempting to dodge anything and I have never done so. I
Did you misunderstand the question or are you dodging the issue? What may or may not have happened in the past to ground squirrels is totally irrelevant and I am not suggesting anything happened or did not happen.
I am inquiring about what you believe is possible in a controlled breeding environment set up by man. You claim that certain things are imposs ...[text shortened]... y was never actually lost in the genes or could it possibly be recreated by careful breading?
may not always understand where you are coming from, but that is
not my attempt to side step an issue.
6. No, not any more than if you, your kids, and your kids, kids, and
so on spent half your lives flapping your arms would you or any of
them grow wings to fly.
7. yes to degrees as some people can run faster than others
8. Not sure what you are saying here, you have a creature with the
bats wing design and so on that cannot fly yet you believe it should
be able to? Maybe you want to breed mice to grow wings?
9. I do believe in change within a limited scope as I have pointed
before, if you have flys for example that lost their wings due to some
diet or other issue, the wings could come back as long as the DNA
retains the information in them.
10. Yes
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThen please answer 1 - 3 based on my clarification that we are not talking about actual past event by hypothetical future breeding experiments.
I'm not attempting to dodge anything and I have never done so. I
may not always understand where you are coming from, but that is
not my attempt to side step an issue.
6. No, not any more than if you, your kids, and your kids, kids, and
so on spent half your lives flapping your arms would you or any of
them grow wings to fly.
Again, I think you have misunderstood the question. You are perfectly well aware that:
a. Dogs can be bread to run faster.
b. pigeons can be bread to fly faster
Why would this not be possible for flying squirrels? And no, it has nothing to do with making them flap their arms repeatedly.
7. yes to degrees as some people can run faster than others
So why bats but not squirrels?
8. Not sure what you are saying here, you have a creature with the
bats wing design and so on that cannot fly yet you believe it should
be able to?
No. Let us break a bats flying ability down into components. They might include its lightweight body, its brain, the strength and endurance of certain muscles, the shape of its wings etc. Remember that a bat does not have any organs that a rat does not have.(its wings are just skin), so it does not violate your no-organs rule.
So, given a creature that is identical to a bat in every way but has say, a heavier skeleton, could we breed it to have a lighter skeleton so that it can fly more like a bat? What feature of a bats flying could not be bread?
Maybe you want to breed mice to grow wings?
Squirrels actually.
9. I do believe in change within a limited scope as I have pointed
before, if you have flys for example that lost their wings due to some
diet or other issue, the wings could come back as long as the DNA
retains the information in them.
What if the DNA is now missing one critical gene? Is it possible to breed the flys so that they either regain that gene or gain a new gene that serves the same purpose?
10. Yes
As above, if the genes were lost, can they never occur again? Why?
Originally posted by twhitehead“Then please answer 1 - 3 based on my clarification that we are not talking about actual past event by hypothetical future breeding experiments.”
Then please answer 1 - 3 based on my clarification that we are not talking about actual past event by hypothetical future breeding experiments.
[b]6. No, not any more than if you, your kids, and your kids, kids, and
so on spent half your lives flapping your arms would you or any of
them grow wings to fly.
Again, I think you have misunderstood th ...[text shortened]... e purpose?
10. Yes
As above, if the genes were lost, can they never occur again? Why?[/b]
Lets look at the 'no wings' claim.
1. Do you think a normal ground squirrel can develop webbing between its limbs enabling it to glide very short distances?
Only if the webbing was something it already had.
2. Do you think a flying squirrel can develop the ability to flap its arms to give it greater distance on glides.
Can a flying squirrel flap its arms, yes
3. Do you think a flapping flying squirrel can develop the ability to actually gain altitude?
Yes, if flapping its arms is all it requires
4. Do you think that a flapping flying squirrel can develop the ability to fly like a bat?
No, to fly like a bat requires wings and design of a bat.
5. Do you think that a flightless bird could be bread by careful breading into a flying bird?
No
Originally posted by twhitehead6. No, not any more than if you, your kids, and your kids, kids, and
Then please answer 1 - 3 based on my clarification that we are not talking about actual past event by hypothetical future breeding experiments.
[b]6. No, not any more than if you, your kids, and your kids, kids, and
so on spent half your lives flapping your arms would you or any of
them grow wings to fly.
Again, I think you have misunderstood th ...[text shortened]... e purpose?
10. Yes
As above, if the genes were lost, can they never occur again? Why?[/b]
so on spent half your lives flapping your arms would you or any of
them grow wings to fly.
Again, I think you have misunderstood the question. You are perfectly well aware that:
a. Dogs can be bread to run faster.
b. pigeons can be bread to fly faster
Why would this not be possible for flying squirrels? And no, it has nothing to do with making them flap their arms repeatedly.
If you are asking me can it grow wings by simply flapping its arms
the answer is no, if you are asking can something do something better
than it can already do as run, fly, smell, or swim yes. Can it grow
something it didn't have because it wants to, no.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead8. Not sure what you are saying here, you have a creature with the
Then please answer 1 - 3 based on my clarification that we are not talking about actual past event by hypothetical future breeding experiments.
[b]6. No, not any more than if you, your kids, and your kids, kids, and
so on spent half your lives flapping your arms would you or any of
them grow wings to fly.
Again, I think you have misunderstood th ...[text shortened]... e purpose?
10. Yes
As above, if the genes were lost, can they never occur again? Why?[/b]
bats wing design and so on that cannot fly yet you believe it should
be able to?
No. Let us break a bats flying ability down into components. They might include its lightweight body, its brain, the strength and endurance of certain muscles, the shape of its wings etc. Remember that a bat does not have any organs that a rat does not have.(its wings are just skin), so it does not violate your no-organs rule.
So, given a creature that is identical to a bat in every way but has say, a heavier skeleton, could we breed it to have a lighter skeleton so that it can fly more like a bat? What feature of a bats flying could not be bread?
You are attempting to tell me you are going to rearrange the ground
squirrel body parts so that it now resembles a bat that is changing the
basic design of one creature into the design of another with just
breeding. No, I do not believe it is possible so it isn’t going to happen
with the ability to fly like a bat.
Kelly
1 edit
1 - Characteristics of the individuals are in the genes.
2 - Genes mutate
3 - Similiar but different individuals compete among themselves (for food, or whatever)
4 - The fittest has greater probability to win the competition.
5 - He has kids with characteristics that on average are more similar to him.
This happens. It's a fact. Look at racing dogs, racing horses, drosophilas, cats, to all animals. We see it clearly in racing horses because we are the ones exerting the strong selective pressure.
Is this hard to understand to anyone? I'm not talking about the past. I talk about NOW. This happens now and is verifiable.
Now tell me why couldn't it have happened BEFORE?
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoYou have a point?
1 - Characteristics of the individuals are in the genes.
2 - Genes mutate
3 - Similiar but different individuals compete among themselves (for food, or whatever)
4 - The fittest has greater probability to win the competition.
5 - He has kids with characteristics that on average are more similar to him.
This happens. It's a fact. Look at racing dogs, t NOW. This happens now and is verifiable.
Now tell me why couldn't it have happened BEFORE?
We have dogs and so on, they change but remain dogs and so on.
We don't start with dogs and end up with fish, in the now.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNote: I am at no point talking about creatures evolving new features because they want to, or infact due to any specific effort on their part. I am talking about man specifically breeding creatures for specific features that man is interested in.
You are attempting to tell me you are going to rearrange the ground
squirrel body parts so that it now resembles a bat that is changing the
basic design of one creature into the design of another with just
breeding. No, I do not believe it is possible so it isn’t going to happen
with the ability to fly like a bat.
Kelly
For example: Man has successfully bread many different animals and crops into significantly different shapes, sizes and colors from their original 'design'.
I have dissected a rat before, and seen my sister dissect various species of bat. There is not a significant obvious difference between the two. As I said, if we break it down, the bats flying ability is mostly due to:
1. Light weight skeleton.
2. Webbed hands.
3. Elongated fingers.
4. Arm muscles with specific characteristics.
5. A modified brain which enables flying control.
I am trying to identify why you believe that a squirrel could not be bread to fly. None of these is a new organ they are merely modifications of organs that a squirrel already possesses. Which of the above features do you think could not be bread into a squirrel and why. Keep in mind that as far as I can see, none of them is as drastic a change as has already been demonstrated as possible amongst other animals (dogs, cows, horses, fish etc).
You say it is impossible, but I want to know specifically why. Is it a specific thing or simply your own personal incredulity for no specific reason?
Originally posted by KellyJayOf couse I have.
You have a point?
We have dogs and so on, they change but remain dogs and so on.
We don't start with dogs and end up with fish, in the now.
Kelly
But first I need to know if you have anything against any of this points. No need to develop further arguments if you don't take the very basic.
Twitehead is doing quite a good job, but I think you first must understand and accept as perfectly possible some more basic concept before you can get what he's saying. Because I real feel you can't understand his point.
In the end I hope you'll understand evolution is quite a possible thing that might have happened (no one is saying for sure that it happened), and that makes very sense with the facts we have today.