Change, that part was correct. And mutations do only act on the genetic material present. However, that small incremental change, over time, results in large changes.
Biology 101.
Biology 101.
Denial of evolution
- Thread starter river-wind
- Start date
- Status
Mutation means "change." It's that simple. Mutations can only act on what's present in a cell. They cannot act on what is not present in the cell. And that's why bacterial cells don't "mutate" into healthy cells any more than ape DNA "mutates" into human DNA. That's all in the imaginations of men.
Yes indeed...
But some recent developments in genetics have me pondering just why a chicken has scale DNA if it didn't evolve. What possible purpose could there be for it in the modern day chicken?
If chickens carried scale DNA then some of their offspring would have scales.
But they don't. So I'll go with what chicken breed rather than with speculating what chicken breed.
Chickens also have DNA coding for teeth.
Study of Chicken Teeth Sheds Light on Evolution
Study of Chicken Teeth Sheds Light on Evolution
A new study shows that chickens, which don't have teeth, still have the genes that make them, and in special cases, those genes can be switched back on. Scientists now think that as animals evolve, they lose the ability to turn those genes on at the right time during development -- not the genes themselves.
If chickens carried scale DNA then some of their offspring would have scales.
aaah they don't do they?
If chickens carried scale DNA then some of their offspring would have scales.
Genes are dormant. They were reactivated.
Yes I already read it.
aaah they don't do they?
Ah....so you're saying this isn't evolution. the Chicken does have some form of scale already? That makes sense I supose
solidsquid
Registered Member
Mutation means "change." It's that simple. Mutations can only act on what's present in a cell. They cannot act on what is not present in the cell. And that's why bacterial cells don't "mutate" into healthy cells any more than ape DNA "mutates" into human DNA. That's all in the imaginations of men.
Again showing you know nothing about biology. Listen closely Carico, can you do that? Now after that you must comprehend what I am about to post, can you do that?
Mutation is defined as by Hartl and Jones (2002) as:
Mutations mainly fall into one of several categories - point, insertion, deletion,
frameshift.
Poirier and McKee (1999) give a brief description of mutations:
Mutation carries such a bad connotation with it. It is usually thought of as being a “bad” thing. However, depending on what change the mutation incurs, it may be “bad”, “good” or neutral for that individual. Pojcta and Springer comment on mutations:
But being as you know so much about biology, you knew this and why DNA has its easily recognized double helical structure. And I'm sure you also know about transposons - could you fill us in on your vast knowledge of transposons? I'm sure that should be no problem for you.
References:
California Museum of Paleontology (2008). Evolution 101: Types of Mutations.
Hartl, D. & Jones, E. (2002). Essential Genetics: A Genomics Perspective. (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Poirier, F. & McKee, J. (1999). Understanding human evolution (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Pojcta, J. & Springer, D. (2001). Evolution and the fossil record. Alexandria: American Geological Institute.
Dont move my on topic replys, thats fucking annoying.
peace.
peace.
Again, mutation can only act on what is already present in the cell. That means that if a healthy cell mutates, it will still remain healthy. If a bacterial cell mutates, it will still remain a bacterial cell.
But cells do not acquire new characteristics not present in the cell, such as a cancer cell mutating into a healthy cell. That's BASIC BIOLOGY. So that means that a cell or gene CANNOT ACQUIRE THE CHARACTERISTIC OF A NEW AND SUPERIOR SPECIES SIMPLY BY MUTATION WHETHER OVER 9 MONTHS OR A GAZILLION YEARS.
Mating and breeding is what produces descendants. So a new creature can only be produced as a hybrid, i.e., the result of 2 different parents WHO ARE CAPABLE OF MATING AND BREEDING TOGETHER. And hybrids are almost always sterile or infertile because they depend on the exact parents to produce them. So they can NEVER breed large populations of their own.
SO HUMANS CANNOT BE THE HYBRID OR THE DESCENDANTS OF APES OR ANY OTHER ANIMAL SINCE HUMANS CANNOT PRODUCE OFFSPRING WITH ANY OTHER ANIMAL. SO EVOLUTION IS PURE FICTION AND BAD FICTION AS WELL.
Last edited:
I'm trying to keep discussions together. Not sure which post you mean. PM me.
Obviously it does.Saquist said:
Feathers are evolved scales, but the same set of genes that produce scales on birds feet produce feathers as well.
They're the same family as in scaled reptiles. One of the things that supports birds having evolved from reptiles - ornithischians, supposedly.
Scales and feathers have an obvious evolutionary heritage, a sequence from fish to reptiles to birds. Mammalian hair and fur comes from the evolved scale genes all mammals have inherited.
Last edited:
solidsquid
Registered Member
Wrong. Gene duplication has been shown to be a key factor in the attainment of novel function in duplicate genes. A couple of examples are the origins of the eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) genes:
(Zhang, Rosenburg & Nei, 1998)
(Zhang, 2003)
Gene duplication is implicated in the evolution of the blood coagulation cascade as well as exon shuffling – which has been important in the rise of evolutionary novelties (Patthy, 2003). Examination of other organisms, the sequencing of the proteases involved, genetic sequence comparison et cetera have all pointed that the blood coagulation cascade evolving from precursors to the point where we are now (Doolittle and Jiang, 2003; Davidson, Tuddenham and McVey, 2003; Kolkman and Stemmer, 2001;
Krem and Di Cera, 2002; Aird, 2003).
The concept is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend.
SO HUMANS CANNOT BE THE HYBRID OR THE DESCENDANTS OF APES OR ANY OTHER ANIMAL SINCE HUMANS CANNOT PRODUCE OFFSPRING WITH ANY OTHER ANIMAL. SO EVOLUTION IS PURE FICTION AND BAD FICTION AS WELL.
You have NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR RETARDED CLAIMS. You have shown absolutely NO backing for your ridiculous assertions other than pitiful anecdotes. Back up your arguments with scientific data or shut up. This is a science forum, let's see some science - WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC BACKING CARICO?. So put up or STFU.
References (PAY ATTENTION TO THESE):
Aird, W. (2003). Hemostasis and irreducible complexity. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 1, 227-230.
Davidson, C., Tuddenham, E. and McVey, J. (2003). 450 million years of hemostasis. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 1, 1487-1494.
Doolittle, R. and Jiang, Y. (2003). The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 7527-7532.
Kolkman, J. and Stemmer, P. (2001). Directed evolution of proteins by exon shuffling. Nature Biotechnology, 19, 423-428.
Krem, M. and Di Cera, E. (2002). Evolution of enzyme cascades from embryonic development to blood coagulation. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 27, 67-74.
Patthy, L. (2003). Modular assembly of genes and the evolution of new functions. Genetica, 118, 217-231.
Zhang, J., Rosenburg, H. and Nei, M. (1998). Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 3708-3713.
Zhang, J. (2003). Evolution by gene duplication: An update. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 292-298.
False. Here's why:
1) In reality apes breed apes, humans breed humans
2) Hybrids like mules are sterile. Look it up for yourself
So while many scientists may not know that apes breed apes and humans breed humans, I have reality to back me up.
So maybe you need to get out of your science books and go visit a zoo sometime to see what each animal breeds. Until you do, I'm afraid that no one can help you.
Breeding is a term used to describe something like animal husbandry. No one ever suggested that this evolution we are talking about happens on such timescales. Almost no change would be noticed from generation to generation. However, the process isn't perfect, and variations occur. An ape may breed an ape with a slightly larger brain. If that larger brained ape manages to survive (maybe a little better than his brothers and sisters), then he will breed apes with the same small adaptation. Over a long time, the gene pool will begin to represent a changed species or even a new species.
Not necessarily, there are limits to brain size, the opening of the female pelvis. We might actually need far larger brains to negotiate in our complex social environment.
- Status