Skip to comments.
First genetic evidence for early animal evolution
Ananova ^
| 2/8/2002
| ---
Posted on 02/08/2002 5:40:18 AM PST by JediGirl
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-176 next last
To: AndrewC
...is it sufficient to say no little population of legless brine shrimp was produced? Rather what was achieved was a diminished glow in the modified shrimp embryos, or am I reading this incorrectly? You are reading this incorrectly. No shrimp of any kind were produced.
To: AndrewC, Lev
Primary (or true) lactose intolerance is an extremely rare genetic condition...You brought this up before and I patiently explained to you that this is a different phenomenon.
The mutation we speak of in adult lactose intolerance is one that allows persistence of the enzyme when the normal enzyme is degraded in adults.
Why do you insist on bringing this up again, as if you are making a valid criticism?
To: Lev
The mutation is lactose tolerance. Originally we were all intolerant. Regards. Thanks. Sure enough the article says lactose tolerance and not intolerance.
To: f.Christian; 2sheep; tallhappy; Thinkin' Gal; Ironword; Jeremiah Jr
I thought they already proved evolution in the early 70's with brine shrimp. They evolved into SEA MONKEYS!!!
To: Nebullis
Well yes I did look, as a matter of fact. Did you even bother to read my post? Show me a Shrimp or a Silverfish with 6 legs, or a spider with 12
105
posted on
02/09/2002 9:58:41 AM PST
by
ventana
To: Nebullis
You are reading this incorrectly. No shrimp of any kind were produced.Is my English that hard to read?
no little population of legless brine shrimp was produced? Rather what was achieved was a diminished glow in the modified shrimp embryos, or am I reading this incorrectly?
I am not Clinton, no means no. And embryo is used in the documentation.
As to the lactose intolerance issue, nothing of the sort was proven in the article where you presented that argument. What was determined from that article was ---
The researchers drew blood samples in order to study the DNA of a Finnish group of 196 lactose-intolerant adults of African, Asian and European descent. Each of them showed the genetic mutation for lactose intolerance in their DNA.
All else is speculation.
106
posted on
02/09/2002 10:04:10 AM PST
by
AndrewC
To: Prodigal Daughter
Evolution is for--by--from--to the
lame--crippled...the finite-dumb attacking the infinite-good--most powerful!
Very-very-very lame---but an ego booster for the dwarfs--midgets(pituitary-reality deprived)!
The Bible says God doesn't solicit or consider their asinine opinions--anal BM deprived viewpoints!
They should be laughed outta here!
To: AndrewC
I am not Clinton, no means no. And embryo is used in the documentation.A drosophila embryo is used in the documentation. Not a shrimp embryo.
To: AndrewC
As to the lactose intolerance issue, nothing of the sort was proven in the article where you presented that argument. It's very simple. I explained this to you before. I'll repeat it. This is background information which is not mentioned in the UCLA article or news release, and it's freely available to anyone interested. There is (1) a congenital lactose intolerance condition which prevents infants from being able to digest milk. This is the condition you keep bringing up.
Normally, the enzyme which allows lactose digestion is turned off as the child ages. But, in a subset of the world's population a mutation is present which allows this enzyme to persist into adulthood, making it possible to digest lactose as adults. This is not speculation. This is the condition (2) that the article refers to.
(1) and (2) are different conditions, each involving different etiologies.
To: Nebullis
A drosophila embryo is used in the documentation. Not a shrimp embryo.I'm sorry, I thought that -- These were selected based on similarity to the mean luminosity with the anti-HA antibody in Artemia Ubx HA embryos along with The San Diego team used brine shrimp to prove a simple mutation here suppressed 15% of the limb development in the animal's central body region. meant that they caused this effect in brine shrimp not in flies. Are they attributing the effects in flies to shrimp?
110
posted on
02/09/2002 10:25:58 AM PST
by
AndrewC
To: AndrewC
Is my English that hard to read?This isn't word-parsing, AndrewC. Your post containing the supplemental information quote from the article demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the central parts of the paper. There is no excuse for this because news releases and multiple synopses have been presented on these threads over the last few days.
To: Nebullis
But, in a subset of the world's population a mutation is present which allows this enzyme to persist into adulthood, making it possible to digest lactose as adults.That is not what the lactose intolerance article shows. The population studied was of lactose intolerant individuals. The statement about lactose tolerance was therefore speculation.
112
posted on
02/09/2002 10:30:34 AM PST
by
AndrewC
To: Nebullis
Lurking ...
To: Nebullis
Your post containing the supplemental information quote from the article demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the central parts of the paper.So my statement that no legless shrimp were created, and the relevant fact that luminence was used to determine the effect establishes a clear misunderstanding of what was presented. What a dope I am.
114
posted on
02/09/2002 10:34:46 AM PST
by
AndrewC
To: AndrewC
So my statement that no legless shrimp were created, and the relevant fact that luminence was used to determine the effect establishes a clear misunderstanding of what was presented.The luminescence assays used to detect gene expression is not a flaw in these studies. I will look up the specific quotes you are quibbling about, but I'm finding unfounded criticisms of research methods a poor substitute for a criticism of the central thesis of the paper.
I'm off to play some tennis, but I'll return to this later.
To: Nebullis
The luminescence assays used to detect gene expression is not a flaw in these studiesThat speaks volumes. I said nothing about flaws, I was stating what was "factual", after all, the top quark is a hump on a graph.
116
posted on
02/09/2002 10:45:23 AM PST
by
AndrewC
To: RaceBannon
Another criteria to study is the complexity of the genetic code being altered in such a way that is not possible in nature. The probabilities are staggering. Still the fossile record has not revealed transformed species. What this says is that evolutionary forms are fast occurring. Well where are those figures today?Why don't those evolutionist go to the basic questions of how can such complexity occurs in such a random way?
117
posted on
02/09/2002 11:19:22 AM PST
by
ChiMark
To: ThinkPlease
from the ICR source: [snip] "The inner workings of the DNA molecule would not have been hidden from the prying eyes of Satan and his henchmen." [snip]
Surely you jest!
Surely the ICR website was hijacked by hackers, who wrote this as a joke. I mean, they couldn't possibly be serious about such stuff.... OOOOPS!
Oh, well. I wonder when ICR will be sponsoring a witch burning. Minions of the Devil, you know.
While they're at it, do you suppose ICR will come out foursquare against pool halls? As the lyrics of "We've Got Trouble" (The Music Man) tell us: "The game with the 15 numbered balls is the Devil's tool!"
To: JediGirl
Unfortunately you are wasting your time. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented, the ardent creationists will simply never believe it.
There are some who would believe the moon is made of cheese if their book told them that.... obviously that applies to no one on this forum :-)
119
posted on
02/09/2002 11:47:32 AM PST
by
mgstarr
To: JediGirl
The San Diego team used brine shrimp to prove a simple mutation here suppressed 15% of the limb development in the animal's central body region.
This would have allowed its ancestors, which had limbs on every segment of its body to lose their hind legs and evolve into six-legged insects.
This just posits that a "mutation" suppressed a percentage of limb development on a hypothetical earlier ancestor of the shrimp allowing some offspring to turn into insects while others evolved into shrimp. It's still begging the overall question. This is common in discussion of any gene families. The simplest member of the gene family in question is assumed to have been the original and the others which are longer are assumed to represent various combinations of duplications, deletions, point mutations, and frame shifts. Once the just-so story has been contrived, it is then accepted as evidence for that which has previously been assumed in order to devise the story in the first place.
What is even more interesting than the "this defect resulted in an impaired body plan" story above is the fact that whereas every organism (even single-celled organisms) is chock full of molecular apparatuses (organelles--such as the rotary motor that drives the flagella of some single celled organisms; various ports on the nuclear membrane of eukaryotes; etc., etc.) that are formed by the interaction of varied protein subunits whose DNA templates are found in diverse genomic locations, there are no such templates for the overall apparatus itself, much less for the intersystemic complementarity that exists between them.
120
posted on
02/09/2002 12:09:11 PM PST
by
aruanan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-176 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson