If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Panda's Thumb)   Recently scientists sequenced the coelacanth genome. Now the creationists have responded in the usual fact-free fashion. Here comes the real science   (pandasthumb.org) divider line 147
    More: Obvious, Discovery Institute, genetic sequence, genomes, Canadian National Exhibition, vertebrates, Answers in Genesis, Darwinian, Earth Science  
•       •       •

6412 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Apr 2013 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



147 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
rpm
2013-04-28 08:48:09 PM  

jso2897: This - the mere belief that all Creation is God's work does not contradict any scientific theory, from the Big Bang to ambiogenesis to evolution to string theory and back again. It's not what people mean when they say "creationism".


Yeah, it does. Quantum Mechanics has been shown to have no hidden variables. There's no place for god to work. The only god that is even close to possible is the deist one, and he kicked it off and got completely out of the way and is no longer in the universe at all.
 
2013-04-28 09:10:30 PM  

rpm: jso2897: This - the mere belief that all Creation is God's work does not contradict any scientific theory, from the Big Bang to ambiogenesis to evolution to string theory and back again. It's not what people mean when they say "creationism".

Yeah, it does. Quantum Mechanics has been shown to have no hidden variables. There's no place for god to work. The only god that is even close to possible is the deist one, and he kicked it off and got completely out of the way and is no longer in the universe at all.


No, it doesn't. The nature and structure of the universe is a factual issue. the existence or non-existence of anything that can be called "God" is a metaphysical one. What you have done is chosen to define "God" as you yourself wish to - much like a Southern Baptist preacher.
As an atheist, i can't do that - so i can't address that metaphysical issue. Either way, it's irrelevant to the mechanics of the universe.
I have no reference for the "God" concept, so it doesn't exist., for me. But I don't confuse my metaphysical position with "reality". To say "God doesn't exist" you must believe in "God" - I don't, so I can't say that. Atheism isn't my religion - but it appears to be yours.
 
2013-04-28 09:16:57 PM  

Arumat: jso2897: Arumat: jso2897: Arumat: I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.

Right - and by responding to his absurd argument on it's own terms, you partially validated it.
I was suggesting that you might not want to do that. Creationists should not be allowed to deflect their preposterous arguments against evolution into an argument about atheism vs faith, in my opinion.
Of course, it's a free country, and if you disagree, by all means carry on.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do disagree.  To let his argument stand without opposition will also validate it in the eyes of people willing to subscribe to that level/type of stupid.  Plus, every time somebody like him tries to stand up a point only to have its foundation knocked out from under it their credibility is undermined as well.  I wouldn't have a problem with it if people want to refute my points and did some research to come back with citations, since that would be evidence that they're at least trying to learn.

Suit yourself - but he was basically trying to derail the discussion, and change the subject - and I would think that bears pointing out. When you participate in a false dichotomy, you are also tacitly lending credence to a lie, are you not? And by buying in to his fallaciously dichotomous argument, you were essentially "standing by without opposition" while he told a deliberate lie.

I don't see how pointing out how his argument is stupid using a statistical example is buying into it, or how invalidating something is lending it legitimacy, unless you think I'm deliberately feeding a martyr complex or something.


I thought we were talking about evolution - not about the existence/non-existence of a metaphysical concept. He wishes to re-frame the argument the metaphysical, because he can't lose that argument. It's circular, and infinite.
And just as an aside - one doesn't need to be religious to have a "martyr complex".
 
2013-04-28 09:52:34 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Funny thing about science. It says that it does not know how the universe started. It has some theories and hypotheses, but it does not claim to know which, if any, are true. That's not faith.


You move the goalposts quite well.

".Well THAT'S a big fat "bullshiat"."
Really? Then why do they call it, oh my, can you believe it, a "faith"?
 
2013-04-28 09:57:01 PM  
Remember kids, creationism... er, we mean 'intelligent design' is so well founded that most of its advocates backed out and wouldn't defend it in court and the one that would had to admit that Tarot Cards were valid science under his definition of science.
 
2013-04-28 10:05:57 PM  

jso2897: I thought we were talking about evolution - not about the existence/non-existence of a metaphysical concept. He wishes to re-frame the argument the metaphysical, because he can't lose that argument. It's circular, and infinite.
And just as an aside - one doesn't need to be religious to have a "martyr complex".


Yes, he tried to re-frame the argument, and I at least attempted to shut him down before he could get rolling.  Ever since then you've been attacking my decision to say something.  You haven't attempted to refute anything I stated except for my opinion that people like him should be opposed, not appeased or ignored.  I'm baffled as to why you would give half a shiat about how I choose to occupy my time.  I knew going in that I was probably biting on a troll, but it's not like I have anything better to do.
 
2013-04-28 10:15:03 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Ed Grubermann: Funny thing about science. It says that it does not know how the universe started. It has some theories and hypotheses, but it does not claim to know which, if any, are true. That's not faith.

You move the goalposts quite well.

".Well THAT'S a big fat "bullshiat"."
Really? Then why do they call it, oh my, can you believe it, a "faith"?


"They" don't. Only you do. And you might as well call it an "artichoke", for all the difference it makes in the context of this discussion. Science is still limited to answering physical questions - it neither responds to no fails to respond to the metaphysical.
The issue of the origin of species on our planet is a physical question, and only one scientific theory has ever been thunk up to address it.
There are, on the other hand, potentially, a million metaphysical explanations - but that's a different subject. Why even discuss the issue if it bores you that much? if you want to talk metaphysics, talk metaphysics in a metaphysics thread someplace. You're like a guy who sits down at a table where everybody is talking about cars and starts talking about can openers. It's actually kind of rude. i believe they call it "derailing", or, more pejoratively, "threadshiatting".
 
rpm
2013-04-28 10:21:24 PM  

jso2897: But I don't confuse my metaphysical position with "reality". To say "God doesn't exist" you must believe in "God" - I don't, so I can't say that. Atheism isn't my religion - but it appears to be yours.


Nope. All someone has to do is provide evidence. That's not a religion.

Religions have had millenia to present evidence. None have. Null hypothesis still holds.
 
2013-04-28 10:23:07 PM  

Arumat: jso2897: I thought we were talking about evolution - not about the existence/non-existence of a metaphysical concept. He wishes to re-frame the argument the metaphysical, because he can't lose that argument. It's circular, and infinite.
And just as an aside - one doesn't need to be religious to have a "martyr complex".

Yes, he tried to re-frame the argument, and I at least attempted to shut him down before he could get rolling.  Ever since then you've been attacking my decision to say something.  You haven't attempted to refute anything I stated except for my opinion that people like him should be opposed, not appeased or ignored.  I'm baffled as to why you would give half a shiat about how I choose to occupy my time.  I knew going in that I was probably biting on a troll, but it's not like I have anything better to do.


Neither do I. We're just talking here, and if I thought you were going to get all personally butthurt about it, I never would have mentioned it, Francis. If that's your idea of someone "attacking" you, you are one sensitive little snowflake.
Lighten up - you'll get over it.
 
rpm
2013-04-28 10:23:48 PM  

jso2897: "They" don't. Only you do. And you might as well call it an "artichoke", for all the difference it makes in the context of this discussion. Science is still limited to answering physical questions - it neither responds to no fails to respond to the metaphysical.


Does god affect the universe Yes / No?

If no, it's metaphysical. If yes, it's physical and is answerable to science. If god doesn't have any physical effects, how can religions claim to know he exists? Thought processes are physical, hence revelation is physical. Creation of the universe is physical.
 
2013-04-28 10:29:09 PM  

rpm: jso2897: But I don't confuse my metaphysical position with "reality". To say "God doesn't exist" you must believe in "God" - I don't, so I can't say that. Atheism isn't my religion - but it appears to be yours.

Nope. All someone has to do is provide evidence. That's not a religion.

Religions have had millenia to present evidence. None have. Null hypothesis still holds.


Evidence of what? The existence or non-existence of some concept that can be called "God"? Metaphysics don't involve "evidence". It's like asking me to provide "evidence" that a woman is beautiful, or a joke is funny. That's why the religious folk always try to move the discussion into that venue - they can't lose, and you can't win.
"Null hypothesis"  is all well and good when it comes to responding to fallacious factual arguments - it's useless in a metaphysical argument.
 
2013-04-28 10:31:00 PM  

rpm: jso2897: "They" don't. Only you do. And you might as well call it an "artichoke", for all the difference it makes in the context of this discussion. Science is still limited to answering physical questions - it neither responds to no fails to respond to the metaphysical.

Does god affect the universe Yes / No?

If no, it's metaphysical. If yes, it's physical and is answerable to science. If god doesn't have any physical effects, how can religions claim to know he exists? Thought processes are physical, hence revelation is physical. Creation of the universe is physical.


If in fact, the universe WAS "created" - but WHETHER it was "created" is a metaphysical question.
 
rpm
2013-04-28 10:32:07 PM  

jso2897: "Null hypothesis"  is all well and good when it comes to responding to fallacious factual arguments - it's useless in a metaphysical argument.


God is an attempt at physical explanation. It is not metaphysical, it has observable effects, otherwise it would never have been posited. Null Hypothesis holds.
 
rpm
2013-04-28 10:33:16 PM  

jso2897: If in fact, the universe WAS "created" - but WHETHER it was "created" is a metaphysical question.


No, it's not. You're making a physical claim about the system. You have two different origins, with differing properties.
 
2013-04-28 10:43:24 PM  
I got about 4 words in and happened to skim ahead....then I realized how boring whatever writer dood is talking bout  is...,.

who are the bigger dorks, the the anthropologists or the geneticists...maybe the geologists...My degree's in Zoology area, so i know I'm pretty farking cool.
Do proctologist's, and urologists and such go into those fields because of interest in them?

GG allen should have been proctologist.
 
2013-04-28 10:52:25 PM  

rpm: jso2897: "Null hypothesis"  is all well and good when it comes to responding to fallacious factual arguments - it's useless in a metaphysical argument.

God is an attempt at physical explanation. It is not metaphysical, it has observable effects, otherwise it would never have been posited. Null Hypothesis holds.


rpm: jso2897: If in fact, the universe WAS "created" - but WHETHER it was "created" is a metaphysical question.

No, it's not. You're making a physical claim about the system. You have two different origins, with differing properties.


You are repeating yourself, without offering any support for your point of view - and you are boring me, much in the same way that a fundamentalist religious person bores me. Your compulsive need for certitude in an uncertain reality, and the hugeness of your need to be "right" are symptomatic of the same existential insecurity that makes the fundamentalist a bore.
For all that you are presenting me with any intellectual interest, or content, you might as well be quoting the bible at me.
Mind you, it is not that I don't empathize with the inability to address the metaphysical - I am , myself unable to do so, and utterly lack the capacity for faith, or any analogue thereof.
I would be a fool to address the existence/non-existence of the abstract concept of "creation" or a "creator" - but at least I'm aware of it, and don't try to catalogue all of reality like it was my stamp collection or some shiat.
 
2013-04-28 10:56:37 PM  

almejita: I got about 4 words in and happened to skim ahead....then I realized how boring whatever writer dood is talking bout  is...,.

who are the bigger dorks, the the anthropologists or the geneticists...maybe the geologists...My degree's in Zoology area, so i know I'm pretty farking cool.
Do proctologist's, and urologists and such go into those fields because of interest in them?

GG allen should have been proctologist.


A poor writer can make anything dull.
 
2013-04-28 11:04:48 PM  
It never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise bright people seem to understand why "creation scientists" are idiots, without understanding WHY they are idiots.
They are idiots because they try to bring metaphysics into the realm of science, and pass it off a science. It is extremely disheartening to see seemingly smart people respond by attempting to bring science into the realm of metaphysics. It's also a problem because it gives metaphysically inspired pseudoscientists reason to believe that they are right, and provides them with superficially convincing arguments to that effect.
After all - if you grant their basic premise, they can always quibble about the details.
 
2013-04-28 11:07:33 PM  
Woops - I meant It never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise bright people seem to understand THAT "creation scientists" are idiots, without understanding WHY they are idiots.
 
rpm
2013-04-28 11:16:51 PM  

jso2897: You are repeating yourself, without offering any support for your point of view


Ok, let's put this in other terms then.

How do you observe the metaphysical? If it's observable, how is it metaphysical? If it's not observable, how do you make claims about it?
 
2013-04-28 11:43:45 PM  

rpm: jso2897: You are repeating yourself, without offering any support for your point of view

Ok, let's put this in other terms then.

How do you observe the metaphysical? If it's observable, how is it metaphysical? If it's not observable, how do you make claims about it?


I don't.
 
2013-04-29 12:58:31 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Ed Grubermann: Funny thing about science. It says that it does not know how the universe started. It has some theories and hypotheses, but it does not claim to know which, if any, are true. That's not faith.

You move the goalposts quite well.

".Well THAT'S a big fat "bullshiat"."
Really? Then why do they call it, oh my, can you believe it, a "faith"?


What goalposts? Science hasn't said "we know how the universe came yo be" in a very long time. Try again, liar.
 
2013-04-29 01:03:20 AM  

jso2897: It never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise bright people seem to understand why "creation scientists" are idiots, without understanding WHY they are idiots.
They are idiots because they try to bring metaphysics into the realm of science, and pass it off a science. It is extremely disheartening to see seemingly smart people respond by attempting to bring science into the realm of metaphysics. It's also a problem because it gives metaphysically inspired pseudoscientists reason to believe that they are right, and provides them with superficially convincing arguments to that effect.
After all - if you grant their basic premise, they can always quibble about the details.


The problem is that "metaphysics" is complete bullshiat. Only, you're not really supposed to say that out loud.
 
2013-04-29 01:04:14 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Repo Man: Has Fark scared off all of the creationists? Since Bevets has gone, I never see anyone defending creationism here. I guess I'll have to go and read YouTube comments to get my fix of creationist derp.

We still have the resident GED in Law, but he usually just makes semantic arguments and ignores anything of substance.


And then there's Wason Selection Failer, but I haven't seen him in a while either (thank Stendarr)

.

Keizer_Ghidorah: God created plants. A day later he realized that plants need light to live, so he created the sun. Some god he is if he overlooks simple things.

Later he creates males and females of every single species that requires them EXCEPT for humans. Then God wonders who Adam is acting so lonely and forlorn. Adam, God's creation, has to ask God why he didn't make a female human when he made a female for everything else. Only then does God realize "Oh yeah, man needs woman", and creates Lilith from the dust. However, Lilith wanted to be equal and not subservient, so God kicked her out (what, you couldn't do some basic reprogramming?) and knocked out Adam so he could take out a rib (which is weird because we still have an equal number of ribs, unless God put an extra one in Adam for whatever reason) and created Eve from it, and since she was once part of Adam she belonged to him as property.

Then there's that whole "cursing all of creation to punish humanity for eternity because Adam and Eve became intelligent" thing.


Where the hell does this "Lillith" thing come from?  I've never seen it in genesis, and the only time the word even appears in the OT is in Isiah.  How the hell do people go from the destruction of Edom to Genesis, or rather an incident not mentioned in Genesis?
 
2013-04-29 01:04:16 AM  

jso2897: rpm: jso2897: You are repeating yourself, without offering any support for your point of view

Ok, let's put this in other terms then.

How do you observe the metaphysical? If it's observable, how is it metaphysical? If it's not observable, how do you make claims about it?

I don't.


Like I said, it's complete bullshiat. There's nothing to "observe".
 
2013-04-29 02:18:41 AM  

Ed Grubermann: jso2897: It never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise bright people seem to understand why "creation scientists" are idiots, without understanding WHY they are idiots.
They are idiots because they try to bring metaphysics into the realm of science, and pass it off a science. It is extremely disheartening to see seemingly smart people respond by attempting to bring science into the realm of metaphysics. It's also a problem because it gives metaphysically inspired pseudoscientists reason to believe that they are right, and provides them with superficially convincing arguments to that effect.
After all - if you grant their basic premise, they can always quibble about the details.

The problem is that "metaphysics" is complete bullshiat. Only, you're not really supposed to say that out loud.


It's entirely necessary to say it, out loud, over and over again, because when you stop saying it out loud, the fools whispering in the corners start convincing the easily led otherwise.
 
2013-04-29 03:48:40 AM  

friday13: Where the hell does this "Lillith" thing come from? I've never seen it in genesis, and the only time the word even appears in the OT is in Isiah. How the hell do people go from the destruction of Edom to Genesis, or rather an incident not mentioned in Genesis?


Here you go.
 
2013-04-29 05:00:45 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.


So, did God create Himself, or happen all on His own?
 
2013-04-29 05:55:35 AM  
I'd just like to add that I'm an atheist and damn proud of it.
 
2013-04-29 06:55:01 AM  

s2s2s2: SpdrJay: Maybe all the creationists got raptured.

I think it is funny that all here smart folks are being dumbfounded by a calendar and a clock.


My vcr has a calander, too!?!?! Oh, ffs..... Be back in a month
 
2013-04-29 08:46:22 AM  

AdrienVeidt: So, did God create Himself, or happen all on His own?


Exerytime he faps, his spank sock creates a new galaxy.
 
2013-04-29 09:04:23 AM  

pivazena: SurfaceTension: pivazena: SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.

these are genes whose sequence hasn't changed a lot across very divergent taxa.  (Because any mutation that did change it would be strongly selected against.) It implies that their function is very important and central to these organisms.  Hox genes are an example of this.  They area vital for body plan formation, and their amino acid sequence hasn't changed in millions of years.

I think I kinda get that. Thanks!

no prob!  The analogy isn't perfect, but think of a car.  Lots and lots of aspects of cars have changed as they've diversified over the past century, but the basic plan is the same-- 4 wheels, engine, axels. That's because the cars need to get from point a to point b, and these parts are vital. If there were genes to make these parts, they'd be the same for 100 years. Maybe some changes, bigger or smaller, two wheels instead of four, but the wheel is still round and rubber, you know? If a mutation came along and made oval wheels, that car wouldn't sell well and would be selected against. Other modifications like power windows or sunroofs or different colors or wood paneling are less central to the car, so they come and go with different car incarnations


*struggles to wrap mind around new theory*

So for example would whatever genes allow for sight be conserved, as most multi-celled organisms in the animal kingdom seem to have it to one degree or another and it seems like a terrible disadvantage to not have it? Or is that too specific?
....
Or do we have basic genes we share with most animals that lay the "ground work" for sight, and then the actual make up of the eye is varied enough that they don't count as conserved genes?

/Sorry, the above is probably completely scientifically illiterate, but any light you can shed would be appreciated.
//Holy crap I need to read a book more often.
 
2013-04-29 09:22:12 AM  
"Here we go back, this is the moment
Tonight is the night, we'll swim till it's over
So we put our fins up like a coelacanth hold-up
Like a coelacanth hold-up"
    --  Mackerelmore

Coelacanth: I'd just like to add that I'm an atheist and damn proud of it.


Good on ya!
Wait-- Are you... Is your last name Green? Are you the world-famous Coelacanth Green?
 
2013-04-29 09:23:14 AM  
So what's all this about Hoax genes?

/read it that way

//need more coffee
 
2013-04-29 09:46:29 AM  

Kurmudgeon:
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?


Jehova with his multitude of angels and his ability to summon complex physical phenomena into existence by simple voice command came about all on his own. At least I've never heard an adherent to any Abrahamic faith explain how he came to be.

/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.

You don't have to be atheist to be a scientist or to have confidence in scientific results. Science is not in competition with religion and scientists are not like the religious clericy. They don't claim to hold absolute truth, they don't promote dogma, and they don't ask anyone to believe them without testing and evidence. There is no leap of faith in science.
Unlike religious dogma, scientific findings are constantly reexamined, research and discovery keep happening, and scientific theories are rarely put to work without proven and predictable results.
 
2013-04-29 10:12:43 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hell, look at Christianity. It's got something like 400 different sects that disagree on tiny and inconsequential things, and all of them make themselves as different as possible from each other and claim they're the only real version.

Over 32,000 different sects. That are known about.


I'd say there are as many Christian sects as there are Christians. No one has an identical viewpoint or belief to anyone else.
 
2013-04-29 10:59:59 AM  

theorellior: friday13: Where the hell does this "Lillith" thing come from? I've never seen it in genesis, and the only time the word even appears in the OT is in Isiah. How the hell do people go from the destruction of Edom to Genesis, or rather an incident not mentioned in Genesis?

Here you go.


So (quick version) it was made up in medival times (and was made to look like some second century jew made it up), and now we treat it as theological fact, despite it being both made out of whole cloth and seems to be intended as satirical as a whole?  Wow, and I thought theology couldn't get any more farked...

/thanks, by the way.
 
2013-04-29 11:13:23 AM  
jso2897:
The issue of the origin of species on our planet is a physical question, and only one scientific theory has ever been thunk up to address it.

Minor historical quibble:  There have actually been several scientific theories thought up to address the origin of species.  Only one of them has stood up to testing.

(This does not conflict with your main point, of course.)
 
2013-04-29 11:26:52 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Tell, me, oh great and wise one, where do I need faith?


The notion that evidence has any pattern; taking the refutation leads to an alternative interpretation with equal internal validity.
Plus to take enough axioms to allow mathematical language expressing the notion of "pattern".

Dansker: There is no leap of faith in science.


As I noted, there's a couple; but most of the leaps are ones inherited from using mathematics as a language.

Ostman: So for example would whatever genes allow for sight be conserved, as most multi-celled organisms in the animal kingdom seem to have it to one degree or another and it seems like a terrible disadvantage to not have it? Or is that too specific?


Most of the ones they're talking about are even more basic -- the basic donut topology of digestive anatomy, the quadruped layout for vertebrates, and so on.
 
2013-04-29 12:14:37 PM  

abb3w: Dansker: There is no leap of faith in science.

As I noted, there's a couple; but most of the leaps are ones inherited from using mathematics as a language.


Fair enough, but that's literally semantics.

And let me add a very, very late thanks for TF.
 
2013-04-29 12:26:02 PM  

Ostman: pivazena: SurfaceTension: pivazena: SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.

these are genes whose sequence hasn't changed a lot across very divergent taxa.  (Because any mutation that did change it would be strongly selected against.) It implies that their function is very important and central to these organisms.  Hox genes are an example of this.  They area vital for body plan formation, and their amino acid sequence hasn't changed in millions of years.

I think I kinda get that. Thanks!

no prob!  The analogy isn't perfect, but think of a car.  Lots and lots of aspects of cars have changed as they've diversified over the past century, but the basic plan is the same-- 4 wheels, engine, axels. That's because the cars need to get from point a to point b, and these parts are vital. If there were genes to make these parts, they'd be the same for 100 years. Maybe some changes, bigger or smaller, two wheels instead of four, but the wheel is still round and rubber, you know? If a mutation came along and made oval wheels, that car wouldn't sell well and would be selected against. Other modifications like power windows or sunroofs or different colors or wood paneling are less central to the car, so they come and go with different car incarnations

*struggles to wrap mind around new theory*

So for example would whatever genes allow for sight be conserved, as most multi-celled organisms in the animal kingdom seem to have it to one degree or another and it seems like a terrible disadvantage to not have it? Or is that too specific?
....
Or do we have basic genes we share with most animals that lay the "ground work" for sight, and then the actual make up of the eye is varied enough that they don't count as conserved genes?

/Sorry, the above is probably completely scientifically illiterate, but any light you can shed would be appreciated.
//Holy crap I need to read a book more often.


Actually, eyes are not an example of conserved genes.  They are an example of convergent evolution.  Eyes are so useful, except in caves, that they have developed independently over and over on different branches of the biological tree .  Having live young is another example of something so useful it also keeps developing independently over and over.

An example of conserved genes would be the fish skeleton.  Change the layout a bit and the bones in the fins become arms and hands in humans.  Fish have ribs, pectoral and pelvic girdles, bones that form the spine and other parts of the skeleton.  Change the layout a bit and you have a frog, or a crocodile, or a bird, or a mouse, or a person.  Add a layer or two to the fish brain and you have a reptilian brain.  Add another layer or two and you have a human brain.  Bit of a simplification, but you get the idea.

Individual mutations, or changes in the DNA, are random.
Some changes don't affect the carrier one way or another or little enough it doesn't affect the carrier.  Think different blood types.  The proteins that form hemoglobin have slightly different amino acid sequences but all carry oxygen just the same.
Some changes affect the carrier in such a way that the carrier has fewer offspring survive and produce more offspring with the change.
Some changes affect the carrier in such a way that the carrier has more offspring survive and produce more offspring with the change.
Believe it or not, but some mutations don't change anything at all.  Each protein, start and stop is a "word" that is three base pairs long.  In some amino acids, there are up to four different "words" that code for the same amino acid.
And some, like sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are actually good if they are paired with a normal gene and very, very bad when there are two "bad" genes.

Which mutations are good and which are bad is dependent, in part, on the environment the carrier is living in.
 
2013-04-29 12:28:57 PM  

SoupJohnB: So what's all this about Hoax genes?

/read it that way

//need more coffee


Hox, rhymes with box.  And they are the basic blueprint/scaffold genes.  They tell what goes where.  And when mutations crop up, that is when you get experimental fruit flies with legs growing from their eyes.  Another thing they control is what color patterns are found where.
 
2013-04-29 01:09:09 PM  

Timid Goddess: SoupJohnB: So what's all this about Hoax genes?

/read it that way

//need more coffee

Hox, rhymes with box.


Would point mutations in fruit flies
cause legs to sprout out from their eyes?
Come on, my friend it's not so awful-a
let's radiate some Drosophilia

I would not, could not
radiate them
for fear that I would
then mutate them
I would not zap them, it's too chancy
Please don't ask, Dr. Dobzhansky!
 
2013-04-29 01:12:33 PM  

FloydA: Timid Goddess: SoupJohnB: So what's all this about Hoax genes?

/read it that way

//need more coffee

Hox, rhymes with box.

Would point mutations in fruit flies
cause legs to sprout out from their eyes?
Come on, my friend it's not so awful-a
let's radiate some Drosophilia

I would not, could not
radiate them
for fear that I would
then mutate them
I would not zap them, it's too chancy
Please don't ask, Dr. Dobzhansky!


Thanks for the giggle.
 
2013-04-29 01:59:57 PM  

Dansker: Fair enough, but that's literally semantics.


The inherited ones, yes; the faith that semantics is even abstractly possible, more or less.

As to the final leap, noting it and how small it seems it might allow for more effective disarming of the religious "NO U" argument. "Yes, here is the entire tiny iota of faith required to get from math to science; the only bit. Do you want to accept it and all the consequences, or see where you can get to if you stick with rejecting it?"

Dansker: And let me add a very, very late thanks for TF.


De nada.
 
2013-04-29 02:26:42 PM  

FloydA: Timid Goddess: SoupJohnB: So what's all this about Hoax genes?

/read it that way

//need more coffee

Hox, rhymes with box.

Would point mutations in fruit flies
cause legs to sprout out from their eyes?
Come on, my friend it's not so awful-a
let's radiate some Drosophilia

I would not, could not
radiate them
for fear that I would
then mutate them
I would not zap them, it's too chancy
Please don't ask, Dr. Dobzhansky!


I've witnessed behavioral mutations in a human college student as a direct result of fruit flies.  This was when he returned to his dorm room after Spring Break.  Where the walls had been smeared with ripe banana pulp, and were thick with the little buggers.

/I swear that I had nothing to do with this childish prank

//well - ok. Let's just say I was not the victim
 
2013-04-29 08:42:55 PM  

vudukungfu: Exerytime he faps, his spank sock creates a new galaxy.


That has to be one crusty jizz sock...
 
Displayed 47 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report