• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
    Results 76 to 92 of 92
    1. #76
      Member gameover's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Chicago
      Posts
      1,642
      Likes
      10
      Yeah, but the jumps are huge with absolutely no evidence behind them. The amount of chromosomes is a very delicate issue with beings. Its very hard to survive with the wrong number of chromosomes and all species have far different numbers. If there is evidense of these slow trasitions then Id love to see it.

      Sounds like you're speculating... not proving anything.
      I'm in Chasing Mars, one of Chicago's best [link removed - ask for permision]indie rock bands[/url]! <------CLICK FOR FREE MUSIC

    2. #77
      Member Estok's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Posts
      50
      Likes
      1
      yes, i was speculating, and i think that evolution is inconclusive in explaining how species come to be.

      ideally, the set of evidences should include:

      on the same fossil, there are two specimens of the same species, but one with 13ch and one with 14ch.

      hypothetically:

      but what is the chance of having such a fossil? the 14ch is a mutant, it is like 0.001% of the population. If you find a collection of fossils, won't it look like the 13ch population just die out and suddenly there is this 14ch population? (not that i believe or have proofs that this is how it is)

      what kind of evidence would convince you that changes of chromosome number happened due to evolution? what kind of evidence would convince you that evolution is impossible to explain changes of chromosome number?

    3. #78
      Member gameover's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Chicago
      Posts
      1,642
      Likes
      10
      Originally posted by Estok
      yes, i was speculating, and i think that evolution is inconclusive in explaining how species come to be. *

      ideally, the set of evidences should include:

      on the same fossil, there are two specimens of the same species, but one with 13ch and one with 14ch. *

      hypothetically:

      but what is the chance of having such a fossil? the 14ch is a mutant, it is like 0.001% of the population. *If you find a collection of fossils, won't it look like the 13ch population just die out and suddenly there is this 14ch population? (not that i believe or have proofs that this is how it is)
      Exactly right. And thats all Im looking for. The evidence of a 13 chromosome speices dying out and a very similar species....and they should be so strickingly similar....appearing. How else could you see the change? THats exactly what I meant.
      I'm in Chasing Mars, one of Chicago's best [link removed - ask for permision]indie rock bands[/url]! <------CLICK FOR FREE MUSIC

    4. #79
      Member Estok's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Posts
      50
      Likes
      1
      gameover, do you have a specific example of closely related species that have different number of chromosomes? I am looking at Caraboidea, it is a beetle though, not like an animal animal.

      SERRANO, J. (1981) Chromosome numbers and karyotypic evolution of Caraboidea. Genética, 55: 51-60
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The chromosome numbers of 136 species of the Spanish caraboid fauna were studied. The most frequent karyotypes are 2n=37 (54species) and 2n=24 (23 species), and the chromosome number ranges from 2n=21 to 2n=69, of which 2n=69 is the highest diploid number hitherto found among the coleoptera. It is proposed that 2n=37 is the ancestral karyotipe of the division Caraboidea and the suborder Adephaga as opposed to that of the suborder Polyphaga, 2n=20. Karyotypic evolution has led to increases and decreases of this number, both tendencies having taken place in four genera. Species of ten genera show a neo-XY bivalent due to an X-autosome fusion. The thirty- three chromosome numbers of Caraboidea reveal that these Coleopterea have a remarkable karyotypical heterogeneity . [/b]

    5. #80
      Member gameover's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Chicago
      Posts
      1,642
      Likes
      10
      Can that be translated into laymans terms I understand?

      And no, I dont have a specific example of two similar species with varying chromosomes.
      I'm in Chasing Mars, one of Chicago's best [link removed - ask for permision]indie rock bands[/url]! <------CLICK FOR FREE MUSIC

    6. #81
      Member Estok's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Posts
      50
      Likes
      1
      what the quote said was that the guy is studying a specific group of beetles Caraboidea, 136 species, that has 33 varying number of chromosomes, ranging from 24ch to 69ch. These are living examples, they are not fossils. And they are not wildly different beetles, they are all the same shape, just different colors if you just look at them.

      I don't know the details about "neo-XY bivalent" or "X-autosome fusion" but they are related to how the "extra" or "wrong" chromosomes can reside in the beetle's DNA while not killing them. They are also the author's explanations of how some of these beetle species gain or lose chromosomes to speciate during the process of evolution.

      In the paper, the argument wasn't whether closely related species can have different number of chromosomes. The author was trying to prove that these species were originated from the ancestral species in the group Adephaga instead of Polyphaga that some other researcher proposed.


      So how is the paper related to our topic?

      So if you are wondering whether very closely related species can have wildly different number of chromosomes the answer seems to be yes. A loose analogy is that pick the group "dogs" alone, there can be dogs that have 24 chromosomes and dogs that have 69 chromosomes, at the same period of time. So let alone the difference between number of chromosomes in a dog and a wolf, they are way more different than the group dogs itself. But again the paper was talking about beetles, mammals are very different.

    7. #82
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2004
      Location
      australia
      Posts
      613
      Likes
      0
      Originally posted by evangel
      What is most unconvincing to me is that the gaps are so huge despite \"billions\" of years. Billions seems like a whole lot of time (a humanly unfathomable amount in fact) to provide say an ancestor that is say something half-way between a worm and an elephant (rather than the examples you gave, Spoon which are actually much closer to the elephant's CURRENT form rather than the type of transitional form I'm interested in)
      I honestly don't know what else I can give you. The section on elephants from the page I linked deals with thier evolution through stages like this (from another site) which I'll quote here:

      Originally posted by http://allelephants.com/allinfo/evol.php#moer

      Moeritherium (extinct)

      Moeritherium, pronounced mee-ri-THEER-ee-um, is the earliest known member of the order Proboscidea. The first fossils were discovered in 1904 at El Faiyum oasis in Egypt. This oasis was known as Lake Moeris in ancient Egypt Moeritherium fossils showed the beginnings of enlarged incisors (tusks) but there is no evidence of a trunk. They lived about 50 million years ago with a hippo-like lifestyle. In fact, they have been described as pygmy hippopotami. They were about the size of a pig standing 70cm at the shoulders with stout elephantine legs and a long body.
      to modern day elephants. Thats one hell of a transition to me. There was even stages it listed before that, but I can't find much specifics on google.

      THAT is a tranistional fossil if I've ever seen one.

      [edit] After mucho searching about elephant's for examples of transitional fossils I realised that I didn't have to pigeonhole myself into that one animal just cause it was used as an example

      Apparently horses are a much better documented example. That link tracks the horse from this:

      The first equid was Hyracotherium, a small forest animal of the early Eocene. This little animal (10-20\" at the shoulder) looked nothing at all like a horse. It had a \"doggish\" look with an arched back, short neck, short snout, short legs, and long tail. It browsed on fruit and fairly soft foliage, and probably scampered from thicket to thicket like a modern muntjac deer, only stupider, slower, and not as agile. This famous little equid was once known by the lovely name \"Eohippus\", meaning \"dawn horse\". Some Hyracotherium traits to notice:

      * ** Legs were flexible and rotatable with all major bones present and unfused.
      * ** 4 toes on each front foot, 3 on hind feet. Vestiges of 1st (& 2nd, behind) toes still present. Hyracotherium walked on pads; its feet were like a dog's padded feet, except with small \"hoofies\" on each toe instead of claws.
      * ** Small brain with especially small frontal lobes.
      * ** Low-crowned teeth with 3 incisors, 1 canine, 4 distinct premolars and 3 \"grinding\" molars in each side of each jaw (this is the \"primitive mammalian formula\" of teeth). The cusps of the molars were slightly connected in low crests. Typical teeth of an omnivorous browser.

      At this point in the early Eocene, equids were not yet very different from the other perissodactyl groups; the Hyracotherium genus includes some species closely related to (or even ancestral to) rhinos and tapirs, as well as species that are distinctly equine. [Note: the particular species that probably gave rise to the rest of the equids, H. vassacciense, may be renamed, perhaps to \"Protorohippus\".][/b]
      to modern day horses.

      -spoon (likes horses more than elephants now)

    8. #83
      Member evangel's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2003
      Location
      San Diego
      Posts
      792
      Likes
      1
      http://www.alternativescience.com/shatteri...f-darwinism.htm

      looks like an interesting read (note I only said interesting! I haven't read the book)

      I also find it interesting also that Darwin's theory has gained so much momentum over the last 100 years or so that it is imbedded in people's way of. Some people claim that it has become less of a scientific theory and more of a philosophy...
      "By day the LORD directs his love, at night his song is with me; a prayer to the God of my life."
      Psalm 42:8

    9. #84
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2004
      Location
      australia
      Posts
      613
      Likes
      0
      Not that I've read it, but I've now read quite a few reviews on it (favourable and otherwise). Got a few problems with it:

      From that link:

      \"It was the absence of transitional fossils that first made me question Darwin's idea of gradual change. I realised, too, that the procedures used to date rocks were circular. Rocks are used to date fossils: fossils are used to date rocks. From here I began to think the unthinkable: could Darwinism be scientifically flawed?\"[/b]
      First the rocks dating fossils thing. A proportion of his \"shattering\" of darwinsm lies on the faulty assertion that radiometric dating is false. He relies on this to support his claim that the world is thousands of years old, and that evolution had to have happened over billions of years (both false, and the first one revealing his creationist bias). Radiometric dating is quite proven in fact. 2 links :

      - link 1 - Radiometric Dating \"A Christian Perspective\" - Written by a christian directed at christians. Very informative

      -link 2 - Radiocarbon Web Info - everything you'll ever need to know about radiometric/c14 dating.

      And anyway, there are more things than radiometric dating that proves an incredibly old world... like... ice cores!.

      Then the claim that there are no transitional fossils. Well, already in this thread I've provided 2 solid examples of a transition from a primitive state (which isnt much like the end product) to what we see now.

      Instead of discussing them again, I'll just quote a good review on the book:

      Chapter 10 is a case in point for the above. Milton mistakenly goes to great lengths to critique evolution (while calling it Darwinism) even though evolution is supposedly the thing he believes in. He claims that there isn't a single transitional fossil. He specifically, and incorrectly, mentions the complete lack of transitional whale fossils. That was not a good species to pick. Various horse fossils, to him, mean that there were either many different isolated species or one species with immense variety within it--he isn't clear as to which is his belief. The only thing he is clear about is that among the wide range of horse fossils there aren't any he would consider to be \"transitionals\". He relies on selective quotes from texts produced in the 1950s and 1961 to come to this conclusion instead of more recent studies. His belief carries over with the same foregone conclusion for Archaeopteryx. He makes it sound as if there is only one or two specimens--initially stating there is \"one spectacular fossil\" before later saying the \"two chief specimens\" are said to be under lock and key. Actually, there are 7+ specimens. Milton claims that it should be easy for \"Darwinists\" (he really means evolutionists) to find transitionals if they really exist. What these transitional fossils need to be, in Milton's view, is a series of \"progressive\" fossils in a set of stratified rock. Since the horse fossils (and others he mentions like ammonites and sea urchins) do contain a series of different fossils, you'd think he'd be convinced. But, no. Since these fossils get bigger and then smaller and change back and forth in other ways over the millennia, they do not qualify. After all, doesn't \"progressive\" mean bigger and more complex? Don't Darwinists have to believe that evolution is constantly progressive? Milton thinks so. He obviously hasn't read Steven Jay Gould's Full House. Nor does he understand the difference between adaptive and progressive. Darwinists are adaptationists. They only believe in Milton's progress if you redefine it to mean adaptive (which isn't the way Milton uses the term).
      [/b]
      And finally to sum it all up, his references at the end of the book end up (apparantly, I haven't read it afterall) being from very few recent publications. Thats a classic identifier for doing research to fit a model you already "know" to be correct.

    10. #85
      Member evangel's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2003
      Location
      San Diego
      Posts
      792
      Likes
      1
      Not that I've read it, but I've now read quite a few reviews on it (favourable and otherwise). Got a few problems with it:[/b]
      Hmmm. not sure how anyone who hasn't read the book can have such an adamant critique. Seems pretty presumptuous to me... I only posted the link so that people who may be interested might check it out instead of listening to us going on forever regurgitating web site references back and forth... I wasn't intending it to be a point of debate - just an interesting read for the many who seem to take evolution so much for granted.
      "By day the LORD directs his love, at night his song is with me; a prayer to the God of my life."
      Psalm 42:8

    11. #86
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2004
      Location
      australia
      Posts
      613
      Likes
      0
      Originally posted by evangel
      Not that I've read it, but I've now read quite a few reviews on it (favourable and otherwise). Got a few problems with it:
      Hmmm. not sure how anyone who hasn't read the book can have such an adamant critique. Seems pretty presumptuous to me... I only posted the link so that people who may be interested might check it out instead of listening to us going on forever regurgitating web site references back and forth... I wasn't intending it to be a point of debate - just an interesting read for the many who seem to take evolution so much for granted.[/b]
      Well I wont debate it then

      I just thought that for someone claiming to have "shattered" darwinism his theories left a lot to be desired. Afterall, I dont have to read the latest robert jordan novel to know that it was boring and nothing happened (there's a clear chance for robert jordan to suddenly develop some skill and prove me wrong )

      edit: ps, brady wheres that piece! Someone who knew more about evolution could probably support it better than me

    12. #87
      Member bradybaker's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2004
      Location
      Canada
      Posts
      2,160
      Likes
      4
      I know, I know. Sorry.

      I've been super busy lately (I'm going away to university on Sunday), so I'm pretty stressed out and such. I'll try my darndest to finish it before then.
      "This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time."



      The Emancipator MySpace

    13. #88
      Member gameover's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Chicago
      Posts
      1,642
      Likes
      10
      too busy for this thread...but plenty of time for all the others.

      Ahh...I dont even read this thread anymore, except I saw that you had posted on it last...thought maybe it came.

      If you get it done before I leave on the 8th, I can check it out. But since then Ive already looked at good arguments both ways. Still curious though, about what you have to say.
      I'm in Chasing Mars, one of Chicago's best [link removed - ask for permision]indie rock bands[/url]! <------CLICK FOR FREE MUSIC

    14. #89
      Bio-Turing Machine O'nus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      - Canada -
      Posts
      4,167
      Likes
      116
      I saw someone post in here my name in hopes to summon me so.. here I am.

      The title is very intriguing as it is now accepted amongst scientists that Evolution is a fact now.. flatly, evolution is factual.

      I&#39;m not sure where the arguments are starting here but the truth of the matter is.. we don&#39;t see red hamsters in a desert.. I&#39;m not sure where everyong has been going with this (I assume probably the idea that we are constantly mutating or something.. which is irrelevant to Darwinism).

      I am not sure what else to mention besides that.. perhaps your replies will help me better understand the debate here?

      Conclusion; evolution is factual. DO NOT CONFUSE THIS WITH THE ORIGIN OF EXISTANCE.

      I hope I have been enlightening.
      ~

    15. #90
      Member TheNocturnalGent's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2006
      Location
      Long Island, New York
      Posts
      203
      Likes
      0
      hey, if milk can become cheeese then a fish casn become a man. I rest my case.
































      i really like cheese.
      spam removed

    16. #91
      - Neruo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2005
      Gender
      Location
      The Netherlands
      Posts
      4,438
      Likes
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by TheNocturnalGent View Post
      hey, if milk can become cheeese then a fish casn become a man. I rest my case.










      i really like cheese.
      [/b]

      Yeah cheese pretty much rocks.... alot.

      _

      About that first article. Any &#39;scientific&#39; article that says things like &#39;are completely wrong&#39; and other absolutistic terms isn&#39;t a scientific article. A scientific article, and actually a scientific researcher for that matter, allways leaves room for the possibilty of other things that arn&#39;t clear at the moment.

      I feel sorry for the man that wrote that text. Lord peniswhats his name. He must be pissed now more and now people see the logic of evultion.
      “What a peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain which we call 'thought'” -Hume

    17. #92
      Party Pooper Tsen's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      LD Count
      ~1 Bajillion.
      Gender
      Posts
      2,530
      Likes
      3
      Just barely found this thread--dug up from two years ago, but nevertheless.

      RE the dating: One, we don&#39;t use carbon dating on many fossils, because of the presence of "old" carbon, which makes them appear older than they are. Instead, we often use Potassium-Argon dating. And NO, it isn&#39;t a circular process--we calibrated the dates for both Radio-Carbon and K-Ar dating by testing the results given by the dating process on objects we knew the age of. In one case, our use of Radio-Carbon dating to find the age of Egyptian artifacts, we thought we&#39;d made a mistake, since the dates were off by several years, but further study revealed that simultaneously, Egypt had been invaded, and their calendar system was interrupted, EXACTLY coinciding with the Radio-Carbon dating.
      [23:17:23] <+Kaniaz> "You think I want to look like Leo Volont? Don't you dare"

    Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •