The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2020, 11:12:33 pm
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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10 Print
Author Topic: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis  (Read 24459 times)
jucce
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 95



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #75 on: May 05, 2007, 05:47:02 am »

Jucce: Because there IS a barrier there. We can breed all kinds of interesting variants and breed for specific characteristics. Take domestic dog, cow and pigeons as examples. But there are limits to this. We can only breed them so big, so small, limited colors and coat patterns, beak sizes etc. etc. What is also interesting is (especially pigeons) that when left to natural breeding they tend to revert back to a common breed. This is because some genes are dominant and some recessive. There honestly is no evidence whatsoever that you can breed changes indefinately. Until there is I will remain skeptical.

Yes there may be constraints on how big you can breed a pig for example. However I don't think breeding like that is the equivalent of evolution. That's basically doing only natural selection (or more like artificial selection) on a population. Genetic mutations and large amounts of time are also needed.

There's no barrier that stops mutation from changing an organism too much at a specific point. You can do simulations of this and clearly much other genetic and fossil evidence is there to support it. What kind of mechanism would stop the genetic change at a certain point?

But aren't you the one who said that microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing? Microevolution is variation that we witness in selective breeding.  And esentially, Darwin took his knowledge of domestic breeding, thought it happened in the wild (which it does) and thought that with enough time breeding variation and natural selection would produce all kinds of novel new phenotypic changes (ie pigs might have horns or flippers someday). Modern genetics, which Darwin knew virtually nothing about , refutes this idea spectacularly.

There are some species we can look at that man has basically created with selective breeding. Wikipedia lists canary, pigeons, the Budgerigar, the peach-faced Lovebird, dogs, cats, sheep, cattle, chickens, llamas, guinea pigs and laboratory mice as examples.

However as I said, what is also needed is time and genetic mutations. Much time is needed to get large changes in a species. And if you're waiting for a specific genetic mutation it will take even longer. And breeding is mostly done for strictly pragmatic reasons.

Natural selection is cumulative, biologists don't see any barriers from micro- to macroevolution. What kind of biological or logical barriers would there be?
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #76 on: May 05, 2007, 07:18:46 pm »

Baltar: Found the raw footage of the Dawkins interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&mode=related&search=

Creationist propoganda? I can certainly see how it was turned into creationist propoganda later and perhaps that was thier intention from the beginning.
Logged
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #77 on: May 06, 2007, 02:37:44 am »

Of course it was intended this way--unless the people who shot the interview are totally unrelated to the people that put together the finished product.  That seems unlikely.  You are digressing again.  You've just agreed that the end product was propaganda, and yet you posted it anyways.

And are you going to address my other points?
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #78 on: May 06, 2007, 03:00:40 pm »

Quote
What kind of mechanism would stop the genetic change at a certain point?

Quote
Natural selection is cumulative, biologists don't see any barriers from micro- to macroevolution. What kind of biological or logical barriers would there be?

This mechanism does:

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


The genome of every species has mutational "hot spots" and a large number of jumping genes. We are finding that these jumps and alterations to genetic code happen in safe areas. Areas that it's ok to introduce changes. This is why cloned lab mice can have a different color coat, different immune system, different arrangements of neurons etc . than the parent they were cloned from.

Basicly this insures individualality. Genetic mutations to code that build organs for example, are spliced out and repaird.


Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #79 on: May 06, 2007, 05:34:17 pm »

Quote
But seriously, you've already admitted you are agnostic....so.....you are saying their must be a 'purpose'...and I guess you can say as much as an agnostic....but you sure as hell don't know what it is.  You are ardently supporting ID....for what then?

ID simply states that some aspects of biology are better explained by design rather than a blind, naturalistic cause. Naturalistic gradualism precludes this concept entirely. ID doesn't nessescitate a supernatural force. The reason I support ID is because of things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2kIatxYrws&mode=related&search=

It's difficult for me to reconcile these sort of designs with a blind, naturalistic force.

Quote
Moreover what is the correlation, or lack of correlation, between evolution and the meaning of life as opposed to ID? 

Modern evolutionary theory rejects design entirely and attributes all evolutionary development to blind naturalistic causes, including the first protolife. Thus it implies no meaning or purpose to anything.

 
Quote
ie how do you conclude that if evolution were true, then there *must* not be a purpose to life, as that does seem to be a significant factor in your preference for ID.  As I see it evolution doesn't create any issues in the realm of spirituality except for those that, say, believe in the literal truth of the Old Testament.

Evolution of life is fact in the strictest sense. Life has changed over time. The question is how and why.
And you are correct that evolution does not rule out purpose. But, from a naturalistic perspective, once you allow purpose in the door, you must consider it a contender in other aspects of life's evolution as well. So purpose is rejected automaticly.

Quote
Also, when you draw conclusions like this when you don't see a 'higher purpose', it places further doubt in my mind that your earlier comment about Dawkins' atheism was intended as a joke.

Dawkins is supposidly a spokesman for the understanding of evolutionary theory. Yet he is a complete dick toward creationists. I don't agree with creationist theology either but I can at least repect them and thier faith even though I do not share it.

Quote
I'm not 'bigoted' at all.  You came in here and said your piece...and I listened....but you stayed and got stuck on the same topic.  I'm not thin skinned either; you have a very long history in these threads of doing all the things I said you did.  And no, the burden of proof is not on me to go find examples.  It is obvious to everyone here.

It's funny that you do the exact same thing to me that you criticize me for. That's called hypocracy.

Quote
Those people that you mention are at the center of all the politics you said you were avoiding.  That is a key difference distinguishing the ID folks from the evolutionists.  Key proponents of ID, even ones that I think you've referred to, are clearly hacks and frauds.  You have on more than one occasion already posted 'educational' or 'documetary' pro-ID works that are blatantly propagandistic.  Do your ID people even produce any research?  Or are they all busy campaigning directly to the electorate to get a wedge in our schools?

Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:
supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.


You decide what they are up to...
« Last Edit: May 06, 2007, 05:46:40 pm by RTyp06 » Logged
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #80 on: May 06, 2007, 06:40:20 pm »

ID simply states that some aspects of biology are better explained by design rather than a blind, naturalistic cause. Naturalistic gradualism precludes this concept entirely. ID doesn't nessescitate a supernatural force. The reason I support ID is because of things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2kIatxYrws&mode=related&search=

It's difficult for me to reconcile these sort of designs with a blind, naturalistic force.

This is another digression.  You have plenty of guys here arguing the science...I was focusing on the philosophical aspects.  You didn't really answer my question.  You expressed interest in ID because it strongly implies some purpose to life.  I was questioning the sense in this since you've already conceded an inability to tell what that purpose may be.

Quote
Modern evolutionary theory rejects design entirely and attributes all evolutionary development to blind naturalistic causes, including the first protolife. Thus it implies no meaning or purpose to anything.

You haven't really explained this...you've just restated your original premise.  How does ascribing naturalistic causes to the formation of life imply lack of purpose?  Does 'the great watchmaker' mean anything to you?

Quote
Evolution of life is fact in the strictest sense. Life has changed over time. The question is how and why.
And you are correct that evolution does not rule out purpose. But, from a naturalistic perspective, once you allow purpose in the door, you must consider it a contender in other aspects of life's evolution as well. So purpose is rejected automaticly.

Huh?  I'm not quite sure what you were saying here.  You seem to be suggesting some kind of dichotomy between naturalistic & purpose.  Moreover you are attempting to link 'naturalistic' to evolution as though it were automatically the case...

Quote
Dawkins is supposidly a spokesman for the understanding of evolutionary theory. Yet he is a complete dick toward creationists. I don't agree with creationist theology either but I can at least repect them and thier faith even though I do not share it.

That is yet another digression that fails to address my point.  You draw the conclusion that being an atheist means no inhibitions.  I take very strong exception to that.

Quote
It's funny that you do the exact same thing to me that you criticize me for. That's called hypocracy.

Actually it is hypocrisy, and I don't recall failing to address any of your points.  I have attacked you, yes absolutely, but I've never used indirection.  You struck first and struck many times before I was even involved.  The point is you are engaged in a scientific debate in which you appear to be blatantly disingenuous.

Quote
Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:
supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.


You decide what they are up to...

I ask for what they've done and all you give me is a mission statement?  What research have these people produced?
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #81 on: May 06, 2007, 09:01:20 pm »

I'm going to drop out of these discussions because all it seems to do is enrage people. Much respect to everyone who participated..
Logged
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #82 on: May 06, 2007, 11:48:16 pm »

Who is enraged here?
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #83 on: May 07, 2007, 05:11:55 am »

Ok, looks like meep isn't as pissed off as I thought he was.

Quote
This is another digression.  You have plenty of guys here arguing the science...I was focusing on the philosophical aspects.  You didn't really answer my question.  You expressed interest in ID because it strongly implies some purpose to life.  I was questioning the sense in this since you've already conceded an inability to tell what that purpose may be.


I believe that life is an alien technolgy because I do not believe the genetic code could arise by chance. (I'll spare you all the scientific arguments.) By indirect reasoning I conclude purpose since all technology that we build is for a purpose.

Quote
You haven't really explained this...you've just restated your original premise.  How does ascribing naturalistic causes to the formation of life imply lack of purpose?  Does 'the great watchmaker' mean anything to you?

Because naturalistic forces are simply characteristics or proporties of energy and matter.

Quote
Huh?  I'm not quite sure what you were saying here.  You seem to be suggesting some kind of dichotomy between naturalistic & purpose.  Moreover you are attempting to link 'naturalistic' to evolution as though it were automatically the case...

I'm saying that the current evolutionary paradigm only attributes naturalistic forces to evolution in biology. The fact that at the very basis of life is run by a chemical coded system negates this assumtion in my view.

Quote
I ask for what they've done and all you give me is a mission statement?  What research have these people produced?

Scott Minnich is deleting genes in flagella producing bacteria and exploring the hypothisis of irreducible complexity. Other than that I do not know. I assume they are granting research money to like minded scientists.
Logged
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #84 on: May 08, 2007, 03:59:05 am »

I believe that life is an alien technolgy because I do not believe the genetic code could arise by chance. (I'll spare you all the scientific arguments.) By indirect reasoning I conclude purpose since all technology that we build is for a purpose.

That still doesn't really address my point.  You don't know what the purpose is.  I just find it difficult to fathom why you would be so attracted to the idea of some kind of implied purpose in the makings of life when you can't claim to know what that is.

Quote
Because naturalistic forces are simply characteristics or proporties of energy and matter.

You could still argue that the 'designer' just set things up in the beginning.  I mean, you have to at least concede that your designer is perfectly ok with forcing all life everywhere in the world to live in unrelenting savagery with itself over scarce resources.  How's that for naturalistic forces?

Quote
Scott Minnich is deleting genes in flagella producing bacteria and exploring the hypothisis of irreducible complexity. Other than that I do not know. I assume they are granting research money to like minded scientists.

Minnich admitted in court that his research in that area was only minimally peer reviewed.  Also, it is quite clear from the Institute's website that it is not a genuine research institute.  It looks clearly like an activist/political website that makes value judgements and appears disingenuous.
Logged
jucce
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 95



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #85 on: May 08, 2007, 05:16:10 am »

Quote
What kind of mechanism would stop the genetic change at a certain point?

Quote
Natural selection is cumulative, biologists don't see any barriers from micro- to macroevolution. What kind of biological or logical barriers would there be?

This mechanism does:

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


The genome of every species has mutational "hot spots" and a large number of jumping genes. We are finding that these jumps and alterations to genetic code happen in safe areas. Areas that it's ok to introduce changes. This is why cloned lab mice can have a different color coat, different immune system, different arrangements of neurons etc . than the parent they were cloned from.

Basicly this insures individualality. Genetic mutations to code that build organs for example, are spliced out and repaird.




Yes, biologists are well aware of jumping genes (transposons). However transposons can cause all kinds of disease and aren't constrained to some safe areas, nor are mutational hot spots. And transposons are mostly a separate process from genetic mutations.

As I'm sure you know the DNA repair system is not perfect. Mutations will slip through sometimes. And I see no basis for the claim that the DNA repair system is partial and perfectly repairs mutations in some areas and ignores it in other.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 06:11:28 am by jucce » Logged
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3842


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


View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #86 on: May 09, 2007, 04:57:18 pm »

It does have some areas it protects more than others, though. This is not intelligent design as RTyp has suggested, of course; it's evolution influenced by heuristic guidelines that themselves evolved.
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #87 on: May 09, 2007, 11:21:55 pm »

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

Gender: Male
Posts: 3842


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


View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #88 on: May 10, 2007, 04:35:18 pm »

Yes, they discovered that 'junk' DNA is kept around in case it's needed, and it can be turned on by small mutations. The practice of doing this itself evolved.

That is all. I remember the article.
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
« Reply #89 on: May 10, 2007, 07:12:20 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.
Logged

What's up doc?
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 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!