Skip to comments.
Fast Fish Evolved Similar Design Separately
Science - Reuters ^
| 2004-05-05
| Patricia Reaney
Posted on 05/05/2004 1:52:07 PM PDT by Junior
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-99 last
To: Agamemnon
definition of life itself
Too easy. First, we take the sun. Its nothing more than a chemical engine. Extrapolating,,, life is the same thing except a little more elaborate (although not so grandiose) so one might call it a chemical computer that has sentient capabilities. But we have to be careful because we are applying our pitiful standards that may inadequately define sentient.
To: Doctor Stochastic
"Why do you make this claim? It's not in the original paper. If you wish to argue with yourself, feel free to do so."You've failed to grasp the significance of what has been suggested by the article for this thread.
The article notes that two widely separated species have remarkably similar, perhaps even identical, muscles and tendons.
Further scientific examination of the shark and tuna genomes will reveal just how similar those muscles and tendons are (in their genetic instruction set).
This examination of shark and tuna genomes will then tell us, scientifically, if we have genetic code skipping or not (a potentially monumental scientific discovery).
82
posted on
05/06/2004 1:05:18 PM PDT
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Allen In So Cal
First, we take the sun. Its nothing more than a chemical engine. Extrapolating,,, life is the same thing except a little more elaborate (although not so grandiose)A little more elaborate?
I'd say so
To: Doctor Stochastic
Mutations cause divergence. Selection may cause convergence. But selection also causes divergence doesn't it? Comparing the shark to the flounder yields an entirely different model.
84
posted on
05/06/2004 1:12:41 PM PDT
by
TN4Liberty
(Life is a quagmire. Get used to it.)
To: Allen In So Cal; Agamemnon
Interesting that all these arguments assume no reality exists outside of the bounds of time. I imagine some felt at one time that all light was visible, too. I wonder if we we ever learn differently?
85
posted on
05/06/2004 1:21:57 PM PDT
by
TN4Liberty
(Life is a quagmire. Get used to it.)
To: CobraJet
Behold a Model A Ford pickup and a new Ford F150. The DESIGN has evolved but both had a DESIGNER! It would be foolish to assume that the pickup truck changed due to natural selection over 75 years.Of course. Few people hold careers in vehicle husbandry. Yet there are selection processes at work. The most useful parts, the steering wheel comes to mind, are carried on into the next generation of vehicles. Unsafe construction and aesthetical abomination (the Gremlin notwithstanding) never makes it on the open market, or is quickly recalled. Some parts start out pretty well and then get improved--like drum to disk brakes.
It just so happens that in the case of automobiles, humans are substituting for the natural processes that 1) create variation and 2) select the features that survive.
One cannot conclude, however, that all processes creating change through successive generations is a product of directed intervention simply because you have identified one that is.
86
posted on
05/06/2004 2:12:48 PM PDT
by
Condorman
(Changes aren't permanent, but change is.)
To: TN4Liberty
The shark and flounder come from different selection filters. Mutation acts like a general drift process. Selection acts as a filter.
87
posted on
05/06/2004 2:15:05 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: PatrickHenry
fishy placemarker
To: Junior
oh...I just realized the headline says FAST fish. I thought it said FAT fish. Now that would be interesting. :o)
89
posted on
05/06/2004 6:24:57 PM PDT
by
arasina
(So there.)
To: arasina
I could have said FLAT fish, but I'm just floundering around.
90
posted on
05/06/2004 10:06:19 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Doctor Stochastic
You just said that for the halibut...
91
posted on
05/06/2004 10:12:18 PM PDT
by
null and void
(Can you say that on FR???)
To: null and void
I did it on porpoise.
92
posted on
05/06/2004 10:15:50 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Southack
That such obvious examples of DNA code re-use, in which genetic subroutines skip generations (and species) to be re-used...likewise doesn't bother Evolutionists.Actually it would, a great deal. But since you just made it up, I'm not so worried,
To: Southack
This examination of shark and tuna genomes will then tell us, scientifically, if we have genetic code skipping or not (a potentially monumental scientific discovery). Unfortunately, you're a bit late. The mitochondrial genomes of cartiliginous fishes have been done for some time, and they're just what we evil evos thought they would be. Sorry.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10051614
To: Right Wing Professor
"Unfortunately, you're a bit late. The mitochondrial genomes of cartiliginous fishes have been done for some time, and they're just what we evil evos thought they would be. Sorry."No, not late. Brand new, as in, so new that the article for this thread is crowing about the new conclusion.
What hasn't been examined yet, keyword: "yet", is whether the tuna and shark, which we now know share remarkably similar (perhaps even identical) tendons and muscles, likewise share identical DNA instruction set subroutines at any significant level.
If such identical programming code subroutines exist in tuna and sharks but do not exist in intermediate species in between, then we would have evidence of genetic code skipping that would falsify Evolutionary Theory.
We aren't there yet (that keyword again), but the article for this thread certainly shows that we are on a collision course for that potential scientific destination.
No doubt that open potential frightens you. You should therefore post some messages ridiculing the whole concept of examining literal base-pair sequences, and otherwise attempt to derail this quest. Who knows, it might even make you feel better; at least until the truth finally comes out...
95
posted on
05/06/2004 11:07:25 PM PDT
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Southack
What hasn't been examined yet, keyword: "yet", is whether the tuna and shark, which we now know share remarkably similar (perhaps even identical) tendons and muscles, likewise share identical DNA instruction set subroutines at any significant level.What part of 'mitochondrial DNA sequence' don't you understand?
To: Junior
tuna is best eaten raw.Preach on, my friend!
97
posted on
05/07/2004 5:34:51 AM PDT
by
Condorman
(Changes aren't permanent, but change is.)
To: Southack
My question was whether the scientific record of the genomes agreed with that faith. I don't think the relevant DNA has been sequenced yet.
PS Although "faith" is a correct word to describe my thoughts here, I generally avoid using it because its other definition (religious faith) makes it easy to engage in the fallacy of equivocation.
What we're talking about here is a scientific prediction similar to thousands that have been made previously and were then later confirmed.
Since this has happened thousands of times, and the opposite (falsifying standard biology) has never happened, it seems like a pretty sure thing to bet on...
This is non-trivial. What we have here is a potential opportunity to examine the falsifiability of Evolutionary Theory.
True enough.
One such "falsifiability" would be direct evidence of specific DNA code completely skipping generations/species.
True. In fact there are a great many potential falsifications, some of which I listed here. The ones having to do with a pseudogene, transposon, etc being present in one species if it's present in two others are the same general idea.
PPS Sorry to take so long to reply, I could't FReep yesterday.
To: Virginia-American
"PPS Sorry to take so long to reply, I could't FReep yesterday."No problem. It's always pleasant to see reasoned debate, even it it takes time.
99
posted on
05/07/2004 10:18:34 PM PDT
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-99 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