RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (21) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   
  Topic: Challenge to Evolutionists< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:04   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:01)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:00)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:58)
turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php


"Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)."

What it is that you don't understand in this report?

it's the "expression" of the same gene, not a change in sequence that is responsible for the change in phenotype.

The change of expression results from a mutation.
So you got your answer. Are you satisfied?

A link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair

(I'm not saying that red-haired are fitter)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:05   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:01)
it's the "expression" of the same gene, not a change in sequence that is responsible for the change in phenotype:

"The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes."

Uh, if you ever manage to read past Genesis, you would understand that the change in sequence occurred in a regulatory region of the DNA. This is still a change in sequence. It is still a change in phenotype. It is still an excellent example of what you asked for.

Now please give us that scientific evidence for mental processes generating life instantly.

thanks again for ignoring this question.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:05   

Quote
well, you've got to account for all the organs and tissues in the body


Yeah!  Like why we humans have lungs and apes don't! Oh wait, uh, I mean, oooops.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:07   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:01)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:00)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:58)
turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php


"Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)."

What it is that you don't understand in this report?

it's the "expression" of the same gene, not a change in sequence that is responsible for the change in phenotype.

The change of expression results from a mutation.
So you got your answer. Are you satisfied?

A link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair

(I'm not saying that red-haired are fitter)

that's just an assumption, not science....there is no observable mutation here for the pigmentation change, just a re-expression of the same gene.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:07   

supersport:
Quote
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.


I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:08   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:05)
Quote
well, you've got to account for all the organs and tissues in the body


Yeah!  Like why we humans have lungs and apes don't! Oh wait, uh, I mean, oooops.

bacteria don't....and that's what we came from -- or something like it.  So where did lungs come from?

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:09   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
supersport:  
Quote
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.


I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?

if evos can say "genes" or the "genome" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:10   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
supersport:  
Quote
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.


I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?

if evos can say "genes" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.

Uh.  You keep asking questions.  They keep getting answered.  You ask new questions.  They get answered too.  How about throwing me a bone and presenting an answer to how minds get passed down.  It doesn't even have to be lucid--just anything will do.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:11   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:01)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:00)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:58)
turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php


"Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)."

What it is that you don't understand in this report?

it's the "expression" of the same gene, not a change in sequence that is responsible for the change in phenotype.

The change of expression results from a mutation.
So you got your answer. Are you satisfied?

A link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair

(I'm not saying that red-haired are fitter)

that's just an assumption, not science....there is no observable mutation here for the pigmentation change, just a re-expression of the same gene.

The level of expression is altered by a mutation in the cis-regulatory sequence.
Is it clear enough?

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:12   

how does this happen without mental processes (the mind) sensing the environment and then altering the body?

http://www.bigskycichlids.com/coloration_article.htm

Coloration is controlled by the endocrine and nervous system, but dietary sources of pigment also play a role in determining color in fishes. The endocrine and nervous system both influence coloration in fish. The pituitary gland secretes hormones that direct the production and storage of pigments throughout the life of a fish, and particularly as maturity is reached. Pigment production and storage often increases at the onset of maturity. Many species use color to provide camouflage and attract a mate. Fish of the family Cichlidae are particularly known for brilliant coloration of mature males. The autonomic nervous system directs rapid color changes in response to stimuli such as a predator or an aggressive tankmate. Anyone who has observed fish knows this color change can occur at a spectacular rate

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:13   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:08)
So where did lungs come from?

Clearly, they came from those mental processes generating things that we are all so anxious to hear the scientific evidence for.

Assertion is not argument.

You are not arguing.

So I think I will stop listening; I have students to indoctrinate and materialist papers to publish.

Please PM me whenever you get around to presenting that evidence for mental processes generating life instantly. Not that I would ever believe that you would recognize a mental process yourself...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Henry J



Posts: 5492
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:14   

I thought what got passed down was the DNA and the other chemicals present in the egg and sperm cells.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:14   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
supersport:    
Quote
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.


I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?

if evos can say "genes" or the "genome" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.

That's interesting. Mendel showed quite the contrary more than 150 years ago.
He detected no evidence that the bodies and minds of his pea plants were passed down.
Mendel was a priest BTW, and he preceded Darwin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendel

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:14   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:11)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:04)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:01)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:00)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:58)
turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php


"Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)."

What it is that you don't understand in this report?

it's the "expression" of the same gene, not a change in sequence that is responsible for the change in phenotype.

The change of expression results from a mutation.
So you got your answer. Are you satisfied?

A link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair

(I'm not saying that red-haired are fitter)

that's just an assumption, not science....there is no observable mutation here for the pigmentation change, just a re-expression of the same gene.

The level of expression is altered by a mutation in the cis-regulatory sequence.
Is it clear enough?

Article about Sean Carrol and evo devo you should read:

http://www.vardaman.com/frid/fridrep102105.php

"Similarly, a gene that affects pigmentation in birds like the chicken and the bananaquit also affects pigmentation in mammals like the jaguar and you. Indeed, changes in bird-plumage color often involve the same gene that causes red hair in humans. This surprising genetic conservatism across nearly all animals is evo devo’s key empirical finding: swans, swallowtails, and socialites are all built from the same genes…

“The real excitement about evo devo, however, has to do with its third claim. Carroll and others have taken the next, and by far the most radical, step and argue that evolution is mostly a matter of throwing these switches.

“Evo devo’s emphasis on switch-throwing represents a profound departure from evolutionary biology’s long obsession with genes. Animal evolution works not so much by changing genes, Carroll maintains, but by changing when and where a conserved set of genes is expressed. In the lingo, evolution is regulatory (involving patterns of gene expression), not structural (involving the precise proteins coded by genes)."

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:16   

Darwinists don’t like the origin-of-life topic brought up in the context of the evo/creo debate. To this they will always proclaim that ToE does not attempt to answer the question of life’s origin. Yet if you read any evolutionists’ books or talk to evos on debate forums they will almost always frame the debate as ToE against special creation. At first this may sound like an ok premise, but if you think about it, it’s off base and it's a diversion. Let me explain:

When evolutionists like Richard Dawkins – or any of the rest of them – frame the debate, they will almost always proclaim the debate is between ToE and special creation...(ie.."Goddidit")….YET evos are the first to admit that ToE is not a theory that deals with origin of life. So we have a disconnect: We have theory of biological change (ToE) being pitted not against another theory of biological change, but against a supernatural creation event. This is wrong, wrong, and wrong…In my opinion, the debate should not be between RMNS vs. special creation, but RMNS against a biological alternative to how change happens: In this case, the polar opposite to RMNS is the ability of the MIND/mental processes to bring about beneficial, purposeful heritable change.

But guess what…..Darwinists hate the mind. They never, but never, mention it in the context of evolution because the mind/mental processes is not only non-scientific, but is something that cannot even be defined, much less measured. The mind to evolutionists is like Kryptonite to Superman. You see, what evolutionists know is that in this day and age it’s accepted and even politically correct to bash and mock YECs…and it’s almost getting to that point even with God. However, it’s not quite so easy to bash the brain, mind, consciousness, awareness and other mental processes, which most people in society would admit are darn-near miraculous. So instead of bashing the mind, evolutionists merely ignore it, choosing instead to bash YEC, which is not even a biological theory of change! Talk about the strawmen of strawmen!

Heck, read any book: Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Darwin, or anyone else, NONE of them talk about the mind, which is the real biological alternative to Darwinism. At most, these people will make some sort of negative comment about creationists or lamarckism. Never is the mind brought up as a possible alternative to RMNS.

So Dawkins and his satellites have successfully pitted ToE against the 6-day Creation story mostly because the 6-day Creation story is (to many people) an unbelievable-sounding event….(by the way, miracles usually are unbelievable-sounding). But Dawkins dares not bring up ToE’s REAL biological opponent: the mind. And in kind, evolutionists have historically refused to test mental processes in animals because they want no part of anything that would contradict their beloved materialism. If the mind indeed controls evolutionary change, then evos’ assertion that mental processes are mere by-products of eons of random physical events is false and thus destroys the whole theory. Sensing/thinking/believing/knowing/being aware can, however, change the expression of DNA -- which, to the chagrin of evos, introduces free will into biology and makes us creators of our own destiny to a certain degree.

Not only that, but the idea that the mind controls biology eliminates the idea that changes in biology are part of a long string of random events that turn creatures into different kinds of creatures over time. Instead, biological change has nothing to do with the build-up of organisms nor the origination of the mind.....which leads to the conclusion that the mind was not built up over time -- and thus must have been created instantly.


http://www.ernestrossi.com/about_p....erience

"We now know that significant life events can turn on genes that lead to the synthesis of proteins, which, in turn, generate new neurons and connections in our brain. Our daily and hourly life experiences, thoughts, emotions, and behavior can modulate gene expression and neurogenesis in ways that actually can change the physical structure of the brain.

This new worldview of the relationships between gene expression and human experience emerging from the Human Genome Project is setting the stage for a profound expansion of our understanding of life.....

...In Chapter 2 we take our first steps in exploring the surprising and little known research on behavioral state-related gene expression: How behavioral states such as sleeping, dreaming, consciousness, vigilance, stress, emotional arousal, and depression are associated with different patterns of gene expression. We learn how a special class of genes called “immediate early genes” can respond to significant life events and psychosocial cues in an adaptive manner within minutes!"

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:23   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:12)
how does this happen without mental processes (the mind) sensing the environment and then altering the body?

You need to learn what "heritability" means.
Place different cichlid species in various environments and see what happens. You'll get some minor variations (environmental variance) but most of the difference between species won't be altered, and they will be transfered to their descendants (genetic variance).

Buy an aquarium, some cichlid fishes and see for yourself.

This is basic quantitative genetic, which rules out your hypothesis.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:26   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:23)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:12)
how does this happen without mental processes (the mind) sensing the environment and then altering the body?

You need to learn what "heritability" means.
Place different cichlid species in various environments and see what happens. You'll get some minor variations (environmental variance) but most of the difference between species won't be altered, and they will be transfered to their descendants (genetic variance).



This is basic quantitative genetic, which rules out your hypothesis.

prove it....show me how science has disproven the notion that acquired traits can be inherited.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:28   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:14)
“Evo devo’s emphasis on switch-throwing represents a profound departure from evolutionary biology’s long obsession with genes. Animal evolution works not so much by changing genes, Carroll maintains, but by changing when and where a conserved set of genes is expressed. In the lingo, evolution is regulatory (involving patterns of gene expression), not structural (involving the precise proteins coded by genes)."

So what?

Do you wish to update your challenge, so we have to come with a mutation that does NOT affect a regulatory sequence, but a coding region?

Your quotes pretty much debunks what you've been saying so far, BTW.

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:29   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:16)
Darwinists don’t like the origin-of-life topic brought up in the context of the evo/creo debate. To this they will always proclaim that ToE does not attempt to answer the question of life’s origin. Yet if you read any evolutionists’ books or talk to evos on debate forums they will almost always frame the debate as ToE against special creation. At first this may sound like an ok premise, but if you think about it, it’s off base and it's a diversion. Let me explain:

When evolutionists like Richard Dawkins – or any of the rest of them – frame the debate, they will almost always proclaim the debate is between ToE and special creation...(ie.."Goddidit")….YET evos are the first to admit that ToE is not a theory that deals with origin of life. So we have a disconnect: We have theory of biological change (ToE) being pitted not against another theory of biological change, but against a supernatural creation event. This is wrong, wrong, and wrong…In my opinion, the debate should not be between RMNS vs. special creation, but RMNS against a biological alternative to how change happens: In this case, the polar opposite to RMNS is the ability of the MIND/mental processes to bring about beneficial, purposeful heritable change.

But guess what…..Darwinists hate the mind. They never, but never, mention it in the context of evolution because the mind/mental processes is not only non-scientific, but is something that cannot even be defined, much less measured. The mind to evolutionists is like Kryptonite to Superman. You see, what evolutionists know is that in this day and age it’s accepted and even politically correct to bash and mock YECs…and it’s almost getting to that point even with God. However, it’s not quite so easy to bash the brain, mind, consciousness, awareness and other mental processes, which most people in society would admit are darn-near miraculous. So instead of bashing the mind, evolutionists merely ignore it, choosing instead to bash YEC, which is not even a biological theory of change! Talk about the strawmen of strawmen!

Heck, read any book: Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Darwin, or anyone else, NONE of them talk about the mind, which is the real biological alternative to Darwinism. At most, these people will make some sort of negative comment about creationists or lamarckism. Never is the mind brought up as a possible alternative to RMNS.

So Dawkins and his satellites have successfully pitted ToE against the 6-day Creation story mostly because the 6-day Creation story is (to many people) an unbelievable-sounding event….(by the way, miracles usually are unbelievable-sounding). But Dawkins dares not bring up ToE’s REAL biological opponent: the mind. And in kind, evolutionists have historically refused to test mental processes in animals because they want no part of anything that would contradict their beloved materialism. If the mind indeed controls evolutionary change, then evos’ assertion that mental processes are mere by-products of eons of random physical events is false and thus destroys the whole theory. Sensing/thinking/believing/knowing/being aware can, however, change the expression of DNA -- which, to the chagrin of evos, introduces free will into biology and makes us creators of our own destiny to a certain degree.

Not only that, but the idea that the mind controls biology eliminates the idea that changes in biology are part of a long string of random events that turn creatures into different kinds of creatures over time. Instead, biological change has nothing to do with the build-up of organisms nor the origination of the mind.....which leads to the conclusion that the mind was not built up over time -- and thus must have been created instantly.


http://www.ernestrossi.com/about_p....erience

"We now know that significant life events can turn on genes that lead to the synthesis of proteins, which, in turn, generate new neurons and connections in our brain. Our daily and hourly life experiences, thoughts, emotions, and behavior can modulate gene expression and neurogenesis in ways that actually can change the physical structure of the brain.

This new worldview of the relationships between gene expression and human experience emerging from the Human Genome Project is setting the stage for a profound expansion of our understanding of life.....

...In Chapter 2 we take our first steps in exploring the surprising and little known research on behavioral state-related gene expression: How behavioral states such as sleeping, dreaming, consciousness, vigilance, stress, emotional arousal, and depression are associated with different patterns of gene expression. We learn how a special class of genes called “immediate early genes” can respond to significant life events and psychosocial cues in an adaptive manner within minutes!"

SS,

Again, you are just wrong.  TOE has nothing to do with Origins.  Attempt to tie the two are disingenious.

"but against a supernatural creation event."..again, there is no supporting evidence for the supernatural creation event.  Not one piece.

Your agrument for the morphology, as you frame it, is laughable.  I guess those millions or so with spinal damage just aren't focusing their mental capabilities hard enough for a new spine.

What sad is, all the arguments you post have repeatedly been dealt with here...over and over....and all been debunked.

That is until another Creo comes out here after sniffing the pile at AIG or some other remedial site and thinks they have just discovered the answers to the universe.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:32   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:26)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:23)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:12)
how does this happen without mental processes (the mind) sensing the environment and then altering the body?

You need to learn what "heritability" means.
Place different cichlid species in various environments and see what happens. You'll get some minor variations (environmental variance) but most of the difference between species won't be altered, and they will be transfered to their descendants (genetic variance).



This is basic quantitative genetic, which rules out your hypothesis.

prove it....show me how science has disproven the notion that acquired traits can be inherited.

Acquired traits can be inherited (epi-genetics), but that's very limited.
You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarkism

Basically, every experiment of quantitative genetics, every experiment of artificial selection (and there are thousands of them) show that genes are transfered, not acquired traits. I'm sure you could find some example in the scientific literature, if you bothered to look for yourself.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:37   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:32)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:26)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:23)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:12)
how does this happen without mental processes (the mind) sensing the environment and then altering the body?

You need to learn what "heritability" means.
Place different cichlid species in various environments and see what happens. You'll get some minor variations (environmental variance) but most of the difference between species won't be altered, and they will be transfered to their descendants (genetic variance).



This is basic quantitative genetic, which rules out your hypothesis.

prove it....show me how science has disproven the notion that acquired traits can be inherited.

Acquired traits can be inherited (epi-genetics), but that's very limited.
You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarkism

prove it...I need to see where it was lamarckism was proven wrong.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:41   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:32)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:26)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:23)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:12)
how does this happen without mental processes (the mind) sensing the environment and then altering the body?

You need to learn what "heritability" means.
Place different cichlid species in various environments and see what happens. You'll get some minor variations (environmental variance) but most of the difference between species won't be altered, and they will be transfered to their descendants (genetic variance).



This is basic quantitative genetic, which rules out your hypothesis.

prove it....show me how science has disproven the notion that acquired traits can be inherited.

Acquired traits can be inherited (epi-genetics), but that's very limited.
You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarkism

also, please prove that epigenetic inheritance is "limited."...limited to what?

Where do you get this stuff?...do you just make stuff up as you go along?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:44   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:41)
Where do you get this stuff?...

In textbooks and scientific journals.
Now do your homework.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:48   

supersport,

you remain stupid, boring, and derivative.

Please fix at least 2 of these things.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:52   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 18 2007,16:02)
souperspork

phenotype is not the corner of ToE and has not been since Weldon and Bateson argued about nothing.  It's like you have never heard of 20 century biology.  

buuuuuuuuttttttt.....  since you have revolutionary views that will completely transform the face of science, here is a journal that will be receptive to them.  they need help.

SuperSpunk's Nobel Prize Is Waiting...

well it should be....bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.

So when people say I have my mother's eyes, I should give them back?  :D

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:57   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:48)
supersport,

you remain stupid, boring, and derivative.

Please fix at least 2 of these things.

I dunno, I'm still chuckling at his 'gay swan' post.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 5492
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:58   

Re "So when people say I have my mother's eyes, I should give them back?"

That sounds like something out of the Addam's Family.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,17:03   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:44)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:41)
Where do you get this stuff?...

In textbooks and scientific journals.
Now do your homework.

wrong. which ones? titles?

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,17:15   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2007,16:57)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:48)
supersport,

you remain stupid, boring, and derivative.

Please fix at least 2 of these things.

I dunno, I'm still chuckling at his 'gay swan' post.

Alright, I'll give him that.  But that is the exception to prove the rule so far.  He could get better.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,17:17   

Further proof that you can't tell a creo-parody from the real thing. Were it not for the apparently extensive electron trail of this loon's prior adventures on teh intertubez, I would be calling shenannigans.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
  603 replies since Sep. 17 2007,22:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (21) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]