News: What Drives Evolution?
Ye Old One
http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/what-drives-evolution/5/3607
Research looking at Antarctic penguins suggests that genetic evolution
is not necessarily reflected in an animal's physical appearance.
A study by scientists at The University of Auckland looked at the
changes in genes between Adelie penguins over 37,000 years, comparing
DNA extracted from ancient bones to DNA from living penguins. The
research found that while genetic mutation and evolution had occurred
at a faster rate than predicted, the penguins had changed very little
morphologically over the same period.
"The Antarctic is the ideal place to study evolution, due to ancient
remains being preserved in the cold, dry environment with little
disturbance," says Dr Craig Millar of the School of Biological
Sciences. "Genetic changes allow us to track the evolutionary
relationships between species, but in the case of Adelie penguins we
have found that genetic change is not necessarily equal to
morphological change."
The research, conducted by scientists at The University of Auckland,
Victoria University Wellington, Massey University and Griffin
University (Queensland), is published in the journal PLoS Genetics.
The four year study was funded by the Marsden Fund and the Allan
Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution.
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
Facts like this is why many evolutionists reject evolution to be
defined at the genetic level.
Ray
Ken Shackleton
It seems to me that in a species which is very well adapted to its
environment, this would be expected. Genetic changes which result in
morphological changes are likely to hinder rather than help, and
therefore be selected against....so the changes that do occur in the
genes and are preserved would tend to be neutral ones.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16cb802e-8dbb-4a44...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...snip
>Facts like this is why many evolutionists reject evolution to be
>defined at the genetic level.
What 'evolutionists' are those, Ray? Care to cite any actual scientists
who don't define evolution as allele frequency change in a population over
time?
DJT
J. J. Lodder
> What Drives Evolution?
>
> http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/what-drives-evolution/5/3607
>
> Research looking at Antarctic penguins suggests that genetic evolution
> is not necessarily reflected in an animal's physical appearance.
I'm shocked, shocked I say.
Haven't these geniusses been proposed for the Nobel prize yet?
Jan
Robert Carnegie
It is an extraordinary insight isn't it, that entities which look the
same on the outside can be different inside - like chocolates in a
selection box. Fudge, coconut, turkish delight...
One example of evolutionary difference without a different outside
appearance: disease resistance. Your disease immunities are, amongst
other considerations, too small to see. But they are there and they
are different to your neighbour's.
Seriously - I think this tis probably worthwhile science. But where
do they get 37,000 year old penguins to compare - ones that tripped
and fell and got deep frozen? Eww.
J. J. Lodder
> On Oct 7, 10:15 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >
> > > What Drives Evolution?
> >
> > >http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/what-drives-evolution/5/3607
> >
> > > Research looking at Antarctic penguins suggests that genetic evolution
> > > is not necessarily reflected in an animal's physical appearance.
> >
> > I'm shocked, shocked I say.
> > Haven't these geniusses been proposed for the Nobel prize yet?
>
> It is an extraordinary insight isn't it, that entities which look the
> same on the outside can be different inside - like chocolates in a
> selection box. Fudge, coconut, turkish delight...
Great insight indeed.
Conversely the same holds for 'recreating'
extinct ancestor species from modern livestock.
Even when they look like it
they probably are quite different animals
on the inside.
And back to the point:
generally it is likely that evolution will occur
where it is both needed and possible.
Since penguin shape and colouring
seems pretty well optimalised already
not much evolution can be expected there.
(how can you possibly improve on what is the best bird?)
> One example of evolutionary difference without a different outside
> appearance: disease resistance. Your disease immunities are, amongst
> other considerations, too small to see. But they are there and they
> are different to your neighbour's.
>
> Seriously - I think this tis probably worthwhile science. But where
> do they get 37,000 year old penguins to compare - ones that tripped
> and fell and got deep frozen? Eww.
Yes, certainly. It's just the presentation that is a bit off.
Anyone who finds 37.000 year old fossil DNA
from a still living species should start comparing,
and see what comes up,
Jan
(M)-adman
rationalization
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
TomS
<50e43ce1-3d34-416d...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Robert
Carnegie stated..."
[...snip...]
>It is an extraordinary insight isn't it, that entities which look the
>same on the outside can be different inside - like chocolates in a
>selection box. Fudge, coconut, turkish delight...
Varieties of creationism?
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
chris thompson
Nice try, but you lose.
Again.
This (the fact that well-adapted species don't change) has been common
knowledge for a long time.
So unless you want to ascribe some precognition powers to biologists
(hey, it's magic so it's ok, right?) this is a reasonable explanation-
not a rationalization.
Chris
Robert Carnegie
> "On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 04:05:18 -0700 (PDT), in article
> Carnegie stated..."
> [...snip...]>It is an extraordinary insight isn't it, that entities which look the
> >same on the outside can be different inside - like chocolates in a
> >selection box. Fudge, coconut, turkish delight...
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Varieties of creationism?
Nah, they look different and all taste like earwax.
(M)-adman
There is even evidence of plants that have not evolved one tiny bit in
millions of years. Even their reproduction has remained the same.
Remove biology from evolution and you got old bones. period.
chris thompson
Well, no, I doubt you can cite anything to that effect. You're
obviously about to bray on again about those orchids. You were
thoroughly thrashed in that thread and you'll be thrashed again if you
make the same dopy assertions.
>
> Remove biology from evolution and you got old bones. period.
Bwahaha. Better than usual. How do you take the biology out of
evolution? And how can you say anything about bones, old or new,
without dealing in biology? And bones aren't even the most important
part of evolution anymore.
Poor adman, standing on the corner in the snow as the school bus pulls
away, left behind again.
Chris
Ken Shackleton
It's testable....and yoru bible still gets wronger every day.
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill Hudson
Really? The expectation that the morphology of penguins shouldn't
change much despite some genetic changes is not all that far fetched.
Unless, of course, you expect penguins to evolve into lanky
featherless forms?
Bill Hudson
... and there is evidence of plants that have changed considerably
over millions of years, or have gone extinct, or where new plants
exist that didn't before. What's your point?
Excuse me while I go water my Archaeopteris
Ernest Major
<9130239b-c81f-487b...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> writes
His statement seems to boil down to "if you ignore all the evidence
other than fossils that all the unignored evidence consists of fossils".
BTW, fossils never were the most important part of the evidence for
evolution.
>
>Poor adman, standing on the corner in the snow as the school bus pulls
>away, left behind again.
>
>Chris
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
Remove evolution from biology and you have nothing left.
I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you like to run
away and try to forget things. However, on the 29th September 2008 you
failed to deal with a number of items that were first listed by
Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now myself)
think you need to address:-
Claiming the actor Paul Newman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this news
group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any given
sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
Bob.
(M)-adman
You obviously did not read the article. Clearly it said the orchid was
exactly the same
Boikat
You mean "Vanilla", that you thought was a single species? That
"plant"?
>
> Remove biology from evolution and you got old bones. period.
How nice of you to furnish another clever one-liner that demonstrates
your ignorance. Mohammad must be proud.
Boikat
>
>
>
> >> --
> >> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
Boikat
Even it it were the exact same species of orchid, so what? There is
nothing in the Toe that says any given species *has* to evolve. If
you believe othersies, I'd like to see the citation that makes the
statement that a species *has* to evolve.
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
You wouldn't know the truth if you saw it from an spotting plane.
Hell, if by some miracle of modern science you *did* recognize it as
"truth", you'd probably call in an air strike on the location.
Boikat
Boikat
Robert Carnegie
> On Oct 7, 10:53 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> > You obviously did not read the article. Clearly it said the orchid was
> > exactly the same
At this point I do not know what article, or what orchid.
> Even it it were the exact same species of orchid, so what? There is
> nothing in the Toe that says any given species *has* to evolve. If
> you believe othersies, I'd like to see the citation that makes the
> statement that a species *has* to evolve.
Well, there's genetic drift. And specifically there's the "junk DNA"
that doesn't do anything but that does get mutated. If God replaced
the junk DNA in the penguin, the orchid, or you, with completely
different junk DNA, then you'd never notice, it takes direct analysis
of the DNA molecule to detect this DNA, but it /is/ there, is part of
the individual's being (although without significance per se), and it
mutates.
Well I never, "othersies" is almost a word. There are over fifty
instances of it that Google search knows about, although some of them
are typoes. Or /all/ of them are typoes? Did you intentionally use
"othersies" in a debate? Would anyone?
Max
orchid species.
chris thompson
> On Oct 8, 6:18 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 10:53 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> > > You obviously did not read the article. Clearly it said the orchid was
> > > exactly the same
>
> At this point I do not know what article, or what orchid.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9f230d20c7b8d31e?hl=en
>
> > Even it it were the exact same species of orchid, so what? There is
> > nothing in the Toe that says any given species *has* to evolve. If
> > you believe othersies, I'd like to see the citation that makes the
> > statement that a species *has* to evolve.
>
> Well, there's genetic drift. And specifically there's the "junk DNA"
> that doesn't do anything but that does get mutated. If God replaced
> the junk DNA in the penguin, the orchid, or you, with completely
> different junk DNA, then you'd never notice, it takes direct analysis
> of the DNA molecule to detect this DNA, but it /is/ there, is part of
> the individual's being (although without significance per se), and it
> mutates.
>
> Well I never, "othersies" is almost a word. There are over fifty
> instances of it that Google search knows about, although some of them
> are typoes. Or /all/ of them are typoes? Did you intentionally use
> "othersies" in a debate? Would anyone?
"Otherwise"?
Chris
chris thompson
Well, since this exact claim was thoroughly debunked the last time you
made it, I can only conclude you suffer from some mental illness, in
which case you have my sympathies, or you are being dishonest, in
which case you have my contempt. If you have a mental illness that
makes you mendacious, the former applies.
Here's what you wrote in that first post:
[quote]
"..analysis, published recently in the journal Nature, indicates
orchids
arose some 76 to 84 million years ago, much longer ago than many
scientists
had estimated. The extinct bee they studied, preserved in amber with a
mass
of orchid pollen on its back, represents some of the only direct
evidence of
pollination in the fossil record."
How about THAT. Some observable evidence that says orchids, the very
same
types we have today, lived 76-84 Million years ago AND were pollinated
in
the exact same way.
[end quote]
Note you draw a completely unwarranted conclusion from the text- that
the orchids are exactly the same type as exist today.
Why continue to lie about this?
Chris
(M)-adman
yes it did.
You obviously did not read the article
(M)-adman
bozo
chris thompson
I did. What I quoted was the part you claimed showed the orchids were
exactly the same.
It did no such thing, and such a claim was never made in the article,
nor in the original literature.
>
> bozo
Now _that's_ an appropriate .sig
Chris
Boikat
> On Oct 8, 6:18 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 10:53 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> > > You obviously did not read the article. Clearly it said the orchid was
> > > exactly the same
>
> At this point I do not know what article, or what orchid.
It was an admonkey thread where he was hooting like a chimp that
discovered a pile of banana's about a bee in amber that had pollen
traced to a "Vanilla", which admonkey took to mean A) "Vanilla" is
almost 100 million years old and has not evolved, B) is pollinated in
the exact same was as it is now, so bees have not evolved over that
same period of time, and C) that proves evolution is wrong.
>
> > Even it it were the exact same species of orchid, so what? There is
> > nothing in the Toe that says any given species *has* to evolve. If
> > you believe othersies, I'd like to see the citation that makes the
> > statement that a species *has* to evolve.
>
> Well, there's genetic drift. And specifically there's the "junk DNA"
> that doesn't do anything but that does get mutated. If God replaced
> the junk DNA in the penguin, the orchid, or you, with completely
> different junk DNA, then you'd never notice, it takes direct analysis
> of the DNA molecule to detect this DNA, but it /is/ there, is part of
> the individual's being (although without significance per se), and it
> mutates.
Even so, there is still not, to the best of my knowledge, anything
that says a species, or een the junk DNA *has* to mutate or drift as
time goes by. The *reality* is that it does happen, for the most
part.
>
> Well I never, "othersies" is almost a word. There are over fifty
> instances of it that Google search knows about, although some of them
> are typoes. Or /all/ of them are typoes? Did you intentionally use
> "othersies" in a debate? Would anyone?
Typo. Nothing more, nothing less. I have a relatively new computer
and the keyboard is a bit smaller, and my "fingers go here" hasn't
quite adapted yet. Not that I *ever* laid claim to be a perfect
spelling master!
Boikat
Boikat
No. It did not. "Vanilla" is not a *species*.
>
> You obviously did not read the article
You obviously are too stupid to understand the words in the article
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
I see you drank the coffee, but did not partake of the sevring of
truth.
Boikat
(M)-adman
Then you read at a 3rg grade level.
chris thompson
Priceless. Thank you for making my morning.
In any case, perhaps you could provide the exact section of the
article in which the authors claimed it was the exact same orchids?
If it's so obvious it shouldn't be too much trouble. Thank you.
Chris
chris thompson
Priceless. Thank you for making my morning.
chris thompson
Here, I will save you the trouble.
1. It would be extremely difficult for the orchid (and the bee) to be
exactly the same as the ones living today, since both plant and
pollinator are long extinct.
2. The authors, in the original work, are quite clear that
_Meliorchis_ is distinct. Here's a cut and paste from the original
article:
"To explore the phylogenetic position of Meliorchis in relation to
Modern orchid taxa, we constructed a morphological character matrix
consisting of 25 characters and 15 taxa adapted from a previous
study18* (see Supplementary Methods for details). Heuristic tree
searches optimized by maximum parsimony yielded 129 equally short
trees, all of which supported monophyly of both the subfamily
Orchidoideae and the subtribe Goodyerinae (Fig. 3). The position of
Meliorchis within Goodyerinae is supported by a bootstrap of 91%. Of
the 129 recovered trees, none supported Meliorchis as a sister clade
to the rest of the Goodyerinae genera. Together, these results
indicate that Meliorchis represents a differentiated lineage within
extant Goodyerinae. On the basis of estimated ages of Dominican
amber3, a minimum age of 15–20 Myr can be assigned to the subtribe
Goodyerinae."
Let me repeat the salient point: "Together, these results indicate
that Meliorchis represents a differentiated lineage within extant
Goodyerinae."
Clearly, the authors are not claiming they are identical to extant
taxa; they are part of a "differentiated lineage".
3. Finally, the authors provide educated conjecture (as opposed to the
sort you offer) about the anatomy of _Meliorchis_. Here's part of the
caption from Figure 2 of the paper:
"Figure 2. Morphology and pollinarium placement of modern Goodyerinae
and hypothetical reconstruction of floral morphology of Meliorchis
caribea. a, The parallel lip (lp) and column (cl) and the erect
anther (an) of extant Goodyerinae typically result in the pollinarium
(pl) attachment on the
pollinator’s mouthparts. b, The attachment of the pollinarium to the
mesoscutellum (dorsal surface of thorax) of a worker bee is only
possible when the lip and column of the flower are parallel but the
anther is bent."
Note they are comparing the modern members of Goodyerinae with
_Meliorchis_. They're not the same.
Chris
*The paper cited here is: Freudenstein, J. V. & Rasmussen, F. N. What
does morphology tell us about orchid relationships?—A cladistic
analysis. Am. J. Bot. 86, 225–248 (1999).
Robert Carnegie
> On Oct 8, 4:00 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 6:18 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Even it it were the exact same species of orchid, so what? There is
> > > nothing in the Toe that says any given species *has* to evolve. If
> > > you believe othersies, I'd like to see the citation that makes the
> > > statement that a species *has* to evolve.
>
> > Well, there's genetic drift. And specifically there's the "junk DNA"
> > that doesn't do anything but that does get mutated. If God replaced
> > the junk DNA in the penguin, the orchid, or you, with completely
> > different junk DNA, then you'd never notice, it takes direct analysis
> > of the DNA molecule to detect this DNA, but it /is/ there, is part of
> > the individual's being (although without significance per se), and it
> > mutates.
>
> Even so, there is still not, to the best of my knowledge, anything
> that says a species, or een the junk DNA *has* to mutate or drift as
> time goes by. The *reality* is that it does happen, for the most
> part.
I would put it more strongly. Genetic drift and mutation of junk are
natural, and genetic drift certainly counts as evolution. An absence
of these circumstances (I don't want to say "effects") is unexpected.
As for whether "the theory of evolution says so", I think that the
full theory of evolution is supposed to describe evolution
comprehensively, and, therefore, /must/ say so.
> > Well I never, "othersies" is almost a word. There are over fifty
> > instances of it that Google search knows about, although some of them
> > are typoes. Or /all/ of them are typoes? Did you intentionally use
> > "othersies" in a debate? Would anyone?
>
> Typo. Nothing more, nothing less. I have a relatively new computer
> and the keyboard is a bit smaller, and my "fingers go here" hasn't
> quite adapted yet. Not that I *ever* laid claim to be a perfect
> spelling master!
I enjoyed it, maybe too much due to watching a lot of _Scrubs_ lately
- several of the characters have a childish inclination - but I'm not
sure how your fingers get tangled up /that/ way. But then I always
typed "helath" meaning "health", which is also a mystery. Why was it
basically that one word?