11 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhitehead1. via mutation -- No
Simply stating something is 'adaptation' not 'evilution' is nothing more than fighting with the dictionary which is a stupid thing to do, definitions are never right or wrong, they just are.
Do you accept that:
1. Colour can arise through mutation.
2. Colour genes can be selected for via natural selection.
If not, how do you define 'adaptation'?
2. via natural selection -- Yes
An adaptation is an inherited or acquired modification in organisms that makes them better suited to survive and reproduce in a particular environment.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
11 Jun 13
1 edit
YOU KNOW WHAT. SKIP THIS ABOUT 'DNA' XXX ARGUMENTS. HAVE YOU READ ABOUT 'DNA-BINDING-PROTEINS' as a sarting point, could go on and on. Those of you who have, please say so, you sound like a bunch of not so wise men. No offence. BUT YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE NOT VALID.
Amongst people like me who actually has taken biology cources it is widely known that bacteria and other bigger organisms share genes, some regions in bacterias are broken in small pieces, this is totally normal, and gets inserted in other areas of their genome. Sometimes it happens to be the genome of another organism, like you and me, this is f.e. a common starting point to how new genes travel between organisms. Especially bacteria. This has been proven many times experimentally.
Insects have a large quantity of bacteria (lets call them that, a bit of simplification) inside their body. The bacteria. They are living organisms just like you and me you know (by that I mean that bacteria reproduce, carry genetic material, digest chemicalls and uses processes like oxidation to 'eat'😉. Well, don't know that much about how the 'bacteria' helps the 'insects'. But they do. Not too much research on the area eather (i think). Several years ago I read a paper about bacterias living in symbioze with 'insects' to fight hostile particles. You could say that this is the 'immune system' they have. // Olof.
11 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by bikingvikinghttp://www.ucg.org/science/hey-hey-dna-proving-gods-existence-genetically/
YOU KNOW WHAT. SKIP THIS ABOUT 'DNA' XXX ARGUMENTS. HAVE YOU READ ABOUT 'DNA-BINDING-PROTEINS' as a sarting point, could go on and on. Those of you who have, please say so, you sound like a bunch of not so wise men. No offence. BUT YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE NOT VALID.
Amongst people like me who actually has taken biology cources it is widely known that bact ile particles. You could say that this is the 'immune system' they have. // Olof.
The Instructor
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you believe Wikipedia is wrong here:
1. via mutation -- No
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budgerigar_colour_genetics
The many color variations of budgerigars, such as albino, blue, cinnamon, Clearwinged, the various Fallows, Grey, Greygreen, Greywing, Lutino, Mauve, Olive, Opaline, Spangled, Suffused, Violet... are the result of mutations that have occurred within specific genes. There are actually at least thirty-two known primary mutations established among budgerigars. These can combine to form hundreds of secondary mutations and color varieties which may or may not be stable.
As is true with all animal species, color mutations occur in captivity as do in the wild. This has been demonstrated when captive-bred budgerigars have developed mutations that had only been previously recorded amongst wild populations.
What about albinism? Do you accept that that is cause by mutations?
2. via natural selection -- Yes
An adaptation is an inherited or acquired modification in organisms that makes them better suited to survive and reproduce in a particular environment.
So when it is 'acquired' not inherited, where does it come from?
11 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds
It is clear to all that know about DNA that it's design purpose is for storage of information code. I have never heard anyone but you claim a swirl of wind stores any information code. Are you referring to a tornado or hurricane? Please explain how you arrive at that conclusion. I see from an earlier post that you do mean a hurricane. But the hurricane i ...[text shortened]... her as I understand it. It does not store up information code for later use.
The Instructor
It is clear to all that know about DNA that it's design PURPOSE is for storage of information code (my emphasis)
Wrong. It is is clear to all that are sane and that know about DNA that it has no intended purpose.
I have never heard anyone but you claim a swirl of wind stores any information code.
NO, you have NEVER heard anyone make such a claim because I made no such claim. Where did I say that "a swirl of wind stores information code”? I said the swirl of wind can be described with information but said nothing about it having “information code”. Read my post again.
Please explain how you arrive at that conclusion
I didn't. Read my post again.
11 Jun 13
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
1. via mutation -- No
2. via natural selection -- Yes
An adaptation is an inherited or acquired modification in organisms that makes them better suited to survive and reproduce in a particular environment.
The Instructor
1. via mutation -- No
Without exception, ALL genes, and that obviously includes any genes for colour, are the result of mutation even if most of those mutations happened many millions of years ago. We know this because have EVIDENCE of both evolution and mutations.
OK, explain to us WHY a gene for colour could NOT have come into existence via mutation? (whether that mutation happen millions of years ago or recently is totally irrelevant here) -your silence on this question will show you have no answer and, as usual, don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by humySomatic mutations are not transferred on to offsprings. These type mutations occur in cells that do not form gametes, that is, these mutations do not end up being carried by eggs or sperm. For example, mutations in your skin, muscle, or liver tissue are somatic mutations.1. via mutation -- No
Without exception, [b]ALL genes, and that obviously includes any genes for colour, are the result of mutation even if most of those mutations happened many millions of years ago. We know this because have EVIDENCE of both evolution and mutations.
OK, explain to us WHY a gene for colour could NOT have come into e ...[text shortened]... how you have no answer and, as usual, don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.[/b]
The Instructor
11 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlbinism is a congenital disorder characterized by the complete or partial absence of pigment in the skin, hair and eyes due to absence or defect of tyrosinase, a copper-containing enzyme involved in the production of melanin. Albinism results from inheritance of recessive gene alleles and is known to affect all vertebrates, including humans.
So you believe Wikipedia is wrong here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budgerigar_colour_genetics
[quote]The many color variations of budgerigars, such as albino, blue, cinnamon, Clearwinged, the various Fallows, Grey, Greygreen, Greywing, Lutino, Mauve, Olive, Opaline, Spangled, Suffused, Violet... are the result of mutations that have occurred within sp ...[text shortened]... particular environment.
So when it is 'acquired' not inherited, where does it come from?[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albinism
Plant breeders have traditionally crossed plants that exhibit wanted properties and selected among the offspring those that had acquired the wanted properties, but this can only be done when the cross produces fertile offspring. With recombinant DNA technology, it is possible to cut a small piece of DNA from one species (donor), introduce it into the DNA of another species (host) with which it cannot cross, but in which the donor DNA is expressed. The host species, now called a genetically modified organism (GMO), thus acquires a new property it could not have obtained by conventional breeding (Nature 2002).
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/emerging/gmo/
The Instructor
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you feel you have answered my questions? Because all I see is cut and pastes of things I already knew, but do not answer my questions.
The Instructor
Are you claiming that albinism cannot arise through mutation - this is a simple yes/no question.
Are you also claiming that the Wikipedia quote I gave is false? Again a yes/no question.
What religious reason do you have for denying the existence of mutations? This one, you can give a paragraph or two.
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo if you propose a theory, it's not your job to prove it... it's my job to disprove it. Is that correct? Is that the operating principle here?
Yes. Thats what I said.
[b]1. I said "new" information cannot arise. For some reason you and one other fellow assumed I was referring to another definition of information AFTER I started off making a distinction between the two.
The misunderstanding came because you referred to 'information theory' then proceeded to use a totally different definit ...[text shortened]... oo has a similar attitude.
Yes, we enjoy debate, but we are also open to learning.[/b]
And if definition isn't a description of what something is (or isn't) then what is a definition? How do you define the word "definition"?
11 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes.
Do you feel you have answered my questions? Because all I see is cut and pastes of things I already knew, but do not answer my questions.
Are you claiming that albinism cannot arise through mutation - this is a simple yes/no question.
Are you also claiming that the Wikipedia quote I gave is false? Again a yes/no question.
What religious reason do you have for denying the existence of mutations? This one, you can give a paragraph or two.
No, I am claiming what I quoted from the wiki article on albinism.
I am not sure what you are referring to concerning your wiki quote.
I am not denying th existence of mutations, only that certain mutations are not past on to offsprings.
The Instructor
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you dispute:
No, I am claiming what I quoted from the wiki article on albinism.
a) that the genes in question could have come from mutations.
b) the statement on the same Wikipedia page:
There are other genetic mutations which are proven to be associated with albinism.
I am not sure what you are referring to concerning your wiki quote.
I quoted a clear claim that certain colours of budgerigars are caused by mutations.
I am not denying th existence of mutations, only that certain mutations are not past on to offsprings.
How is that even remotely relevant? It wasn't even disputed. What I was disputing was what I thought you claimed which was that colour is never the result of a mutation. You clearly stated 'no' when I asked if it was possible. Are you retracting that claim?
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, not at all. How did you get that from anything I said? I said I am perfectly happy to have a discussion where either party convinces the other of their point of view. If you are correct, and have good reasons for thinking you are correct, you should be able to explain those reasons to me and I should be able to either explain to you why you are wrong, or be convinced by the reasons.
So if you propose a theory, it's not your job to prove it... it's my job to disprove it. Is that correct? Is that the operating principle here?
And if definition isn't a description of what something is (or isn't)
It is, but I am not convinced you have given a clear description of what you mean by 'information'. Further, you confused us when you mentioned 'information theory' which has a fairly specific definition which you then proceeded to say has nothing to do with what you were talking about. Then you got upset because we didn't understand you.
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadOn the color of the bird's feathers being caused by mutations, that may be true, but I suspect that it is probably due to the mixing of the genes during breeding. Mutations are generally eliminated during future reproduction and not carried over. I think you are misstating my claim again.
So you dispute:
a) that the genes in question could have come from mutations.
b) the statement on the same Wikipedia page:There are other genetic mutations which are proven to be associated with albinism.
[b]I am not sure what you are referring to concerning your wiki quote.
I quoted a clear claim that certain colours of budgeri ...[text shortened]... tion. You clearly stated 'no' when I asked if it was possible. Are you retracting that claim?[/b]
The Instructor