The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 14, 2022, 08:34:01 am
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Print
Author Topic: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis  (Read 28103 times)
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #90 on: May 10, 2007, 11:05:19 pm »

The genetic revolution is under way and in my opinion the outcome doesn't look good for pure darwinian mechanisims.

When the genetic revolution comes, your kind will be the first to be put up against the wall. Well, unless you have proper genes of course, like me.

I'm cool with that, as long as I get a cigarette and a blindfold.. Wink
Logged
jucce
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 95



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #91 on: May 11, 2007, 06:29:38 am »

Here's an article from Scientific American, 2003

http://www.imb.uq.edu.au/download/large/TheUnseenGenome.pdf

Some more interesting paragraphs.

"The persistence of pseudogenes is in itself evidence for their activity.  This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly.  Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would expect that ‘old’ pseudogenes would be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations.  Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known."


“I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century,” Mattick says. “The failure to recognize the full implications of this particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."

This article isn't from ID "hacks" either. The genetic revolution is under way and in my opinion the outcome doesn't look good for pure darwinian mechanisims.

Yes, those are some interesting theories. However I don't see how they clash with evolution or resonate with ID. He himself says that his theories fit with the theory of evolution.
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #92 on: May 13, 2007, 03:36:46 pm »

Quote
Yes, those are some interesting theories. However I don't see how they clash with evolution or resonate with ID. He himself says that his theories fit with the theory of evolution.

...I’ve interacted with other pro-evolution individuals who grudgingly admit that some of what used to be considered junk “may not be”, but inevitably they will still argue that “the vast majority of non-coding DNA does not have any function”.    Why does this line of reasoning seem to be so important to evolutionists?    I can think of two reasons.    For one, if only 2% of human DNA is “functional”, then there is a lot less information that had to be produced by random mutations and natural selection.    If even 10% of the genome is functional, that would be 5 times more information.   If 50% of the genome is functional, that means 25 times more information.    Pretty soon the amount of information contained in the genomes of the various species proves to be enormous if it is attributed to evolution.    Another reason “junk” appeals to the evolutionists is because it would seem to run counter to the idea of an Intelligent Designer (or Creator).   We can see that in Dawkins’ statements above.   But, more importantly, pro-evolution websites have built major arguments in support of evolution based upon the idea of “shared errors” (shared junk), as proof of evolution.

The Talk Origins Archive, perhaps the number one pro-evolution website (along with “Pandas Thumb”), has two articles that rely on the “shared errors” argument in support of evolution.  The Talk Origins authors detail a number of different classes of “Junk DNA” that they claim prove common descent.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#transposons
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

Panda’s Thumb also finds it important to argue for “Junk DNA”:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/another_example.html

In the rest of this section I will show how those arguments are being obliterated by the evidence pouring in from molecular biology and genetics research....


Article from:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/Pseudogenes/Pseudogenes.doc
« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 03:38:42 pm by RTyp06 » Logged
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3866


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #93 on: May 13, 2007, 06:31:33 pm »

Why was that post mostly itals?

Anyway, there's a big difference between 'not used at the moment' which is the kind of junk this stuff still is, and 'never could be useful'.

And how many of these junk genes are near duplicates of existing genes? Oh, right, quite a few. That 25 x information is illusory.
Logged
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #94 on: May 13, 2007, 06:55:20 pm »

RType, this article is shit.  It isn't remotely scientific with all of this colored language.  Alleging that 'pro-evolution' folks are just clinging to the notion of junk DNA to counter creationists...evidence 'annihilated' by genetic research....I can't believe the amount of allegations and colored language in this work.  Who is the author?

Interesting that this article calls the controversy a 'war' and seems to acknowledge that the position doesn't yet have evidence on its side--and that the primary battlegrounds seem to be in 'the courtrooms, classrooms and even at the polls', not...oh, say....within the scientific community.  It begs a few questions, like why push this so ardently to begin with, and who was this article really intended for?
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #95 on: May 13, 2007, 09:53:02 pm »

So "junk Dna" *isn't* a strong argument for evolution presented at talk origins and panda's thumb? I notice how you don't argue against the claims made but just dismiss it all as shit. Psuedo genes are used to argue and establish genomic evolutionary relationships no matter how badly you may want to dismiss this.

Also , don't you see how Darwinism is becoming a dogmatic religion in it's own right and resembles the very thing you hate?

Watch these video's with an open mind and tell me what they are saying isn't true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF9B6b2SVoI&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raW6BQscwh4&mode=related&search=

Darwinism *is* becoming the athiest religion. We don't celebrate Einstein, Galileo or Newton day. Darwin day has replaced Lincoln's birthday in the U.S. This is how evolution is indeed becoming "more than a theory".

Logged
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3866


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #96 on: May 13, 2007, 10:03:20 pm »

So "junk Dna" *isn't* a strong argument for evolution presented at talk origins and panda's thumb?

So the first link to junk dna if you search the talk origins archive isn't about the uses of junk dna? OMG! look! It is!

THIS kind of purpose supports evolution even more strongly than the lack of purpose it was thought to have before! If you read the sciAm article completely, you'd know that.

I notice how you don't argue against the claims made but just dismiss it all as shit.

We did argue against it, successfully, and it is shit. Please stop handing us shit.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 10:06:41 pm by Death 999 » Logged
xenoclone
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 104



View Profile WWW
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #97 on: May 13, 2007, 11:48:35 pm »

Two quick points:

1- What scientific evidence is there for ID? Mind you, perceived flaws in evolution (often due to semantic misinterpretations) do not count.

2- I'm doing my thesis in evolvable hardware using genetic algorithms. It's not uncommon to see a macro-sized jump in fitness amongst a bunch of micro-sized improvements. And I do zero to give the GA "knowledge" about what its population members should look like. I just don't see how the mechanism is supposed to not work. It works for me!
Logged

Baltar
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #98 on: May 14, 2007, 12:11:47 am »

So "junk Dna" *isn't* a strong argument for evolution presented at talk origins and panda's thumb? I notice how you don't argue against the claims made but just dismiss it all as shit. Psuedo genes are used to argue and establish genomic evolutionary relationships no matter how badly you may want to dismiss this.

No, I didn't just dismiss it as shit.  I told you exactly why I thought it was after I said so.  Too bad I used harsh language so that you could focus on that and not address the real issue.  That article was unscientific and unprofessional.  I ask again, who in the hell is that author?

Quote
Also , don't you see how Darwinism is becoming a dogmatic religion in it's own right and resembles the very thing you hate?

mmmmm.....nope.

Quote
Watch these video's with an open mind and tell me what they are saying isn't true:

Ah, I see.  So if I don't come back with a changed mind then I must be 'closed minded'.

Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF9B6b2SVoI&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raW6BQscwh4&mode=related&search=

Darwinism *is* becoming the athiest religion. We don't celebrate Einstein, Galileo or Newton day. Darwin day has replaced Lincoln's birthday in the U.S. This is how evolution is indeed becoming "more than a theory".


Again, shit.  This is such an obvious creationist diatribe how can you not see this?  Moreover, you quickly dismiss clearly uneducated creationists/ID folks yet are *very* quick to accuse the evolutionist camp of being dogmatic.

What a ludicrious argument....I didn't even know that their *was* a Darwin Day.  He just rattles off a list of groups and activities seen as promoting atheism & evolution.  How does this advance his case in any way?  None of this has to do with 1) scientific venues or 2) our classrooms.  Oh no!  'Scientific Gospel Productions' is giving a concert!  Surely darwin's dogma is getting rammed down our childrens' throats!  I could go anywhere on the web and find similar activities on both sides of the aisle.  In fact I could go find a wackjob for just about any cause.  Does it mean anything? 

Funnier still, this guy paints a picture wildly differing from my own experience.  In all of my years of public schooling, I've *never* had a teacher that was actually supportive of evolution.  They've all pretty much said outright that they don't support it and put on a whole act about how they begrudgingly have no choice but to teach it.   Consequently they don't even try that hard to teach it and just dance around it.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 12:16:09 am by Baltar » Logged
Cedric6014
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 701



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #99 on: May 14, 2007, 08:46:54 am »


In all of my years of public schooling, I've *never* had a teacher that was actually supportive of evolution.  They've all pretty much said outright that they don't support it and put on a whole act about how they begrudgingly have no choice but to teach it.   Consequently they don't even try that hard to teach it and just dance around it.

Wow, only in America.
Logged

Play online melee here! http://irc.uqm.stack.nl/
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #100 on: May 14, 2007, 04:57:29 pm »

Two quick points:

1- What scientific evidence is there for ID? Mind you, perceived flaws in evolution (often due to semantic misinterpretations) do not count.

2- I'm doing my thesis in evolvable hardware using genetic algorithms. It's not uncommon to see a macro-sized jump in fitness amongst a bunch of micro-sized improvements. And I do zero to give the GA "knowledge" about what its population members should look like. I just don't see how the mechanism is supposed to not work. It works for me!

If this is such a wonderful development tool as you claim, why can't scientists reproduce these micro sized improvements to macro scale jumps in the lab with artificial random mutaion on living specimins? There is no reason why they shouldn't be able to do this if evolution proceeds as predicted.

Death and Baltar.. Whoa, cool your jets for a moment and hear me out please.

1st, Death you are correct, Talk origins has updated their argument to now include functional junk DNA. Funny how useless  junk worked in their favor but now, wow, functional "junk" is suddenly working in their favor as well. Ever notice how all scientifc discovery just goes to show how unfalsifyable random mutaion and natural selection is? There is absolutely nothing to discover that can change this mindset.

Baltar about the dogma I spoke of. An honest question: Why do sites like Panda's Thumb, Skeptics Dictionary, Talk Orgins etc. etc. pour so much time and resource into countering the arguments of "religious rubes"? I can understand the creationist side as they are trying to square data with a literal interpretation of the bible. But what of the evolution side? Why does it seem that Darwinists are doing the same with scientific data into evolutionary theory? Why is this such a hot button topic and if evolutionary theory is on such firm scientific underpinnings, why even bother?

Doesn't this all seem to be a battle between atheism and creationism? Two religious viewpoints. Neither side is about objective science it seems. Ever notice the creationist fish and the Darwin fish with legs on the back of cars around your town? This is pure, world view, creationist vs. atheism and I assert that Darwin IS being lifted to sainthood, perhaps even prophet status by many even if you, yourself don't.

I wish I was completely objective, I admit I have bias. But it honestly doesn't matter to me if we evolved from single celled organisms 4 billion years ago. It doesn't matter if life formed from the prebiotic oceans. But I have a right to be skptical of such claims without solid scientific proof. And furthermore, you are all equally right to hold your opinions.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 05:06:55 pm by RTyp06 » Logged
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #101 on: May 14, 2007, 05:56:21 pm »

If this is such a wonderful development tool as you claim, why can't scientists reproduce these micro sized improvements to macro scale jumps in the lab with artificial random mutaion on living specimins? There is no reason why they shouldn't be able to do this if evolution proceeds as predicted.
... Apart from the time and population size required to generate enough changes to satisfy the "macroevolution" criterion.

Quote
1st, Death you are correct, Talk origins has updated their argument to now include functional junk DNA. Funny how useless  junk worked in their favor but now, wow, functional "junk" is suddenly working in their favor as well. Ever notice how all scientifc discovery just goes to show how unfalsifyable random mutaion and natural selection is? There is absolutely nothing to discover that can change this mindset.
Unfalsifiable? If there were no junk DNA at all, that would be a severe blow to evolution (and a good argument for irreducible complexity, and thus ID). Even large amounts of junk DNA, on the other hand, make sense in an evolutionary framework if they allow some other advantage (such as becoming useful after a mutation!).

I fail to see why a small amount of DNA previously identified as "junk" being found to have a function matters one way or the other.

Quote
Why do sites like Panda's Thumb, Skeptics Dictionary, Talk Orgins etc. etc. pour so much time and resource into countering the arguments of "religious rubes"?
Because they're afraid the "religious rubes" are going to start dictating what they're allowed or required to teach and/or research?

Quote
Doesn't this all seem to be a battle between atheism and creationism? Two religious viewpoints. Neither side is about objective science it seems.
To some extent the issue of the existence of God is independent of the mechanism through which life as we know it has developed; God may choose to allow evolution to occur. Conversely, life on Earth may have been designed by a designer less than God.

Quote
Ever notice the creationist fish and the Darwin fish with legs on the back of cars around your town?
No.
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #102 on: May 14, 2007, 06:12:33 pm »

Quote
Ever notice the creationist fish and the Darwin fish with legs on the back of cars around your town?
No.

This is one of the things that annoys me with this. RT seems to assume that all the world is exactly the same as wherever he is.
Logged

What's up doc?
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3866


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #103 on: May 14, 2007, 08:41:28 pm »

1st, Death you are correct, Talk origins has updated their argument to now include functional junk DNA. Funny how useless  junk worked in their favor but now, wow, functional "junk" is suddenly working in their favor as well.

The hierarchy of  the way things could be in terms of DNA supporting or going against evolution, sorted with best for evolution on top, has always been:
1 self-editing, with undelete capability, capable of bringing back scraps.
2 some limited self-editing capability, sometimes leaving scraps behind, which are not expressed
3 like 2, but only for things that are actually expressed in the animal (vestigial organs)
4 creature is locally optimized, but not globally
5 creature is globally optimized

Darwin only had the evidence to get 3. With the discovery of DNA and protected regions and accelerated mutation while under stress pushed us up to 2. Big evidence for 2 was the junk DNA. Discovery that junk DNA could be reincorporated usefully brought us to 1.

Do you now understand how this fits together?



Why is this such a hot button topic and if evolutionary theory is on such firm scientific underpinnings, why even bother?

Because discovering the truth doesn't do the populace any good if they are not taught it?

Ever notice the creationist fish and the Darwin fish with legs on the back of cars around your town? This is pure, world view, creationist vs. atheism and I assert that Darwin IS being lifted to sainthood, perhaps even prophet status by many even if you, yourself don't.

The difference is the darwin fish is a joke. It was, I believe, initially a play off of the 'jesus' fish that have been around a lot longer. Have you seen the variant with the leggy fish humping each other? It is a joke with serious content behind it, and it is not an attempt to bypass that serious content. Much as the daily show is not an attempt to bypass people actually getting the news.

Darwin is an important figure, sure, but not for personal reverence (sainthood my ass); and what he knew is not the end of what we know.

Let me draw an analogy to this reasoning:
Have you noticed the bumper stickers like "Bush Cheney '04" and "Kerry Edwards '04" on cars? That just proves that all politics is pure worldview with no substance behind it at all.

And for some reason the worldview of the populace has shifted against Bush by around 85% over the past few years, due to entirely emotional and worldview grounds, utterly nothing at all to do with this thing we call 'reality'.

You might notice that the above two paragraphs are kind of ridiculous. That is what your argument amounted to.

And furthermore, you are all equally right to hold your opinions.

What here is opinion? That it doesn't matter to you if we evolved from prebiotic soup 4 billion years ago... that's the only opinion I've seen here. The rest is factual claims trying to survive under the aegis of being opinion.
Logged
xenoclone
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 104



View Profile WWW
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #104 on: May 14, 2007, 10:47:45 pm »

Quote
If this is such a wonderful development tool as you claim, why can't scientists reproduce these micro sized improvements to macro scale jumps in the lab with artificial random mutaion on living specimins? There is no reason why they shouldn't be able to do this if evolution proceeds as predicted.

In a way we do. Ever heard of a wild poodle? It doesn't exist. Poodles were evolved by humans using breeding. It was a totally natural process. I'd call it a macro-sized jump. Certainly a poodle can't go back to the wild or breed with wolves.

Plus, I think it's a big misnomer on both sides of the debate that animals are "perfectly" adapted to their environment. There are useless remnants of evolution everywhere. Why do humans have an appendix? If we remove it, we live just fine... but if it goes bad, it can kill us. What kind of intelligent design went into that?
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!