Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
That's called "microevolution" and nobody disputes it.
That's called "microevolution" and nobody disputes it.
This is why I say that an arbitrary distinction is not a barrier. Unlike most of your anti-E brethren, you have moved the micro-macro distinction up the Linnaean ladder to the level of order. You have to evolve out of the order Caudata to macroevolve for medved. (I assume here that going from salamander to mudpuppy or siren would not fill the bill for you. "Salamander" is a rather unscientific term which applies across several families in this order.)
But even a Linnaean order is an arbitrary distinction, the kind of thing people argue over. What is the real-world barrier?
Now since humans and guinea pigs are widely separated species evolutionally speaking, and there are many other species in between which are closer to humans than guinea pigs, it seems to me that this is a proof against evolution. Otherwise all the species in between man and guinea pig would be lacking the gene to make vitamin c.
True enough, IF the two species shared the SAME mutation. NOwhere is this stated in the article - what is claimed is that the exact same mutation occurs in the primates, showing their (our) common descent. The mutation in the guinea pig affects the same gene, but it's not the same mutation as the one found in the primates. I don't have a link, but here are some printed references that explain the two distinct mutations:
Nishikimi et al. J Biol Chem 267: 21967, 1992; Nishikimi et al. J BIol Chem 269:13685, 1994
Also, your comments on blood got me thinking. Did you know that all cheetahs are almost as alike as identical twins? In particular, they can accept skin grafts and blood from each other. People are all one species, but cannot accept each others' blood unless the types match. On the other hand, human and chimp hemoglobin are identical. Not similar, identical.
Personally, I find shared mistakes to be very strong evidence of common descent. I mean, is there any other expanation?
Same goes for repressed genes that occasionally are expressed (and are then called birth defects), like the whales with legs. Again, is there any other explanation than inheritance from a legged ancestor?
Think what you wish.
It seems you think the issue is knowing what is meoisis or mitosis.
It's a sign of your tenuous hold on the concepts that you think that is an accomplishment on your part.
You talked about old mitosis (or some such vague term). I asked you what it was. You then go off on to emergence of meiosing organisms.
Your knowledge is a mile wide but an inch deep.
I am glad of one thing. My main point in ever commenting in these discussion has been taken. You are now stressing politeness and respect.
Hallelujah! My being purposely and consistently rude and demeaning and disrespectful to you seems to have finally put the idea in your head that perhaps you should be polite and and not disrespectful to those you feel superior to.
Huh?
OK, Frankenstein, Godzilla, Environmental disaster, science.
Can we say false superficial characterization.
My point. You are as bigotted, if not more, than any extreme creationist.
Was that..."give me evolution or give me-you death"...?
Exactly. I tried to explain that some time ago but the idea that there must be a barrier is an artifact of our method of categorizing things thus it isn't easy to root out.
I used the analogy with the visible spectrum where we too use categorizations (red, yellow, green, blue) but there isn't a barrier between red, yellow, green, or blue either, it's just a continuum.
Separation of church--state and republicanism went out the door via secular materialists who deny and suppress all expression and freedom of speech--thought--philosophy--Truth--"religion"!
Evolution breaks the establishment clause and is an uncostitutional public--state religion---a very dumb---intolerant one too!
Yes and no, mostly no. It's about their implications for the figure I posted in 739 and earlier to Aquinasfan. Evolution has a longwinded story--a postdiction, true--about what those long, long periods of stasis at such simple levels were and, conversely, what that rush of innovation came from over the last part. Creationism has, "Who am I to question HIM?" ID has "Second-guessing the nature or intentions of the designer is of course outside the scope of the theory. (Harrumph!)"
You seem now to be word-twisting on my phrase "modern" mitosis, insisting upon your earlier misinterpretation. (Do I remember you word-twisting on another thread when, correcting your use of "he," I told you that Nebullis is a mother?) I have challenged you to think again. Perhaps rethinking is not your strong point.
Indeed, you have always stressed politeness and respect, to you, from others.
That's like looking at humans, chimps, gorillas and bonobos [sp?] and saying, 'they all still look like primates.'
I suppose I should thank you for the mile and the inch, given that so many smaller units are available. (But then, you haven't kicked in enough dimensions to compute a volume yet.)
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.