Cop for this Darwin.
- Thread starter HillBill
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Bill, you aren't seeing the whole picture for looking at a crumb.
The DNA is billions of bits, and out of that they have traced a tiny fragment that was on an easily found piece.
Any scientist knows that while discussion of some new 'find' is fine and well, the real value comes when it is subjected to peer criticism and review.
Then if it passes, it can be claimed to be valid.
Instead of a whole new species, it's simply a tiny bit that might change the way a freckle looks.
A new species is a quite distinct entity, It is only true when that 'new one' cannot breed fertile offspring with the species from which it originated. That has not happened.
cheers,
Toddy
The DNA is billions of bits, and out of that they have traced a tiny fragment that was on an easily found piece.
Any scientist knows that while discussion of some new 'find' is fine and well, the real value comes when it is subjected to peer criticism and review.
Then if it passes, it can be claimed to be valid.
Instead of a whole new species, it's simply a tiny bit that might change the way a freckle looks.
A new species is a quite distinct entity, It is only true when that 'new one' cannot breed fertile offspring with the species from which it originated. That has not happened.
cheers,
Toddy
HillBill, I'm not even going to try and correct your misunderstanding of DNA, genetics, and evolution. Lets just say you're wildly wrong about more-or-less everything and leave it at that, eh?
The last time we got into this sort of thing, it didn't end too well.
The last time we got into this sort of thing, it didn't end too well.
I know this is the 'Other Chatter' section and is open to er...'other' topics, but I wonder if some members may find the following forum a better place for some of their...er, 'chatter'...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/
Who says they predicted the end of the world? A common misconception i believe. They mayans believe the earth will change and us with it. No end of the world. Have a look at the mayan evoloution of conciousness. They believe that our minds will evolve, our way of thinking and perception of things around us will change, they believe the power stucture (paradigm) will collapse and we will all lead a new free life. TEOTWAWKI definately.
THE end of the world....NO
Read the Dresden Codex if you have the mind. The most complete mayan book ever found. Its only 11 feet long by 8 inches high
OK all. I can see this going way off and folks getting impassioned.
Although it's other chatter and a place to share non bushcraft items of interest can I suggest that if you want to discuss in depth genetic theory then find an appropriate forum.
David
Although it's other chatter and a place to share non bushcraft items of interest can I suggest that if you want to discuss in depth genetic theory then find an appropriate forum.
David
All a bit unfair to HillBill again.
Surely if he's wrong you should explain where he's wrong.
,not just say he's wrong and that you aren't even going to explain why.
Gregroach,have the courage of your convictions and show us where HillBill is wrong.Just saying he's wrong without showing why implies that you don't know that he's wrong and it's just your opinion,which we all are entitled to.
Surely if he's wrong you should explain where he's wrong.
,not just say he's wrong and that you aren't even going to explain why.
Gregroach,have the courage of your convictions and show us where HillBill is wrong.Just saying he's wrong without showing why implies that you don't know that he's wrong and it's just your opinion,which we all are entitled to.
Maybe, but as no rules have been broken then the thread is fair play. Sorry if you don't like it, but at the end of the day you can just ignore it. No one forces anyone to read anything on here
Maybe you could post some guidelines on suitable topics for other chatter? ( the board for subjects that don't fit anywhere else) And seeing as we are all on this forum because we all share an affinity for the natural world i don't see how a discussion on something which in part formed the world you love to be out in is irrelevant or not part of all this?? None of this is dodgy conspiracy stuff. Just natural history. Whats your problem?
That's only one definition of a species. It doesn't account for asexual reproduction. Darwin was well aware of the problem of "defining" species. Also, very slight changes in homeobox genes can lead to major changes in an organism. This fundamental idea has led to widespread research in the growing field of "evo devo."
Nothing in that article disproves Darwin's fundamental ideas, nor is horizontal gene transfer a new discovery. It's been discussed for decades in protistans, archaebacteria, and bacteria. It is likely the fundamental mechanism that led to the development of the eukaryotic cell through endosymbiosis.
Well, if the basic assumption of a clade is that it has to be monophyletic (all genes transfer vertically), then that's going to leave a whole lot of polyphyletic or paraphyletic groups. So many that it seems to negate the concept of clade as the defining taxon.
Sorry HB but there are a couple of 'yes but's in there
I'll bow down the the staff technical expert of Hoodoo for the specifics and tecky stuff as it's way over my head.
At the moment we'll let this carry on but it does seem that TEOTWAWKI is another subject to add to the politics and religeon list. this thread is edging towards that side of things.
Lets try an keep this on target please people.
Thanks
Mark
Unless the mods/ admin deem otherwise
apart from the mods who have to read everything!No one forces anyone to read anything on here
well, sort of. It is a very niche part of the natural world, not to say we should only discuss mainstream though. Most people would only have a passing interest at most I would think. You're talking about future events as well as history which does take it towards 'dodgy conspiracy stuff'. Added to some of the other posts you've made recently I'm sure you can see our concern...
I'll bow down the the staff technical expert of Hoodoo for the specifics and tecky stuff as it's way over my head.
At the moment we'll let this carry on but it does seem that TEOTWAWKI is another subject to add to the politics and religeon list. this thread is edging towards that side of things.
Lets try an keep this on target please people.
Thanks
Mark
Maybe, but as no rules have been broken then the thread is fair play. Sorry if you don't like it, but at the end of the day you can just ignore it. No one forces anyone to read anything on here
Maybe you could post some guidelines on suitable topics for other chatter? ( the board for subjects that don't fit anywhere else) And seeing as we are all on this forum because we all share an affinity for the natural world i don't see how a discussion on something which in part formed the world you love to be out in is irrelevant or not part of all this?? None of this is dodgy conspiracy stuff. Just natural history. Whats your problem?
i'm inclined to agree with this. It's an interesting and harmless topic and I'm up for following the discussion. Things seem to have moved on significantly in evolutionary biology since I was at uni and this has helped me update my knowledge a bit.
can someone confirm if i've understood this correctly...
If a virus evolved naturally that could replicate small sections of DNA it may (theoretically) then carry them as RNA chunks in subsequent generations to a different host of another species. the RNA then being used to replicate foreign proteins in the new host... there could be some sort of effect on the physiology of the new host which could change its appearance or habits and significantly impact evolution, possibly allowing for bigger brains, better vocal chords and the development of sentience. There would be an awful lot left to chance but for some this could explain why humans have developed inteligence beyond other mammals.
This is dependent on the virus being able to jump from species to species in different classes, a process which easier to explain if you use clades instead good old fashioned Linnaen taxonomy.
I can't see viruses beaming in from outer space to do this though, surely they would be vapourised when entering our atmosphere.
and who brought the mayans into it?
Hmmmm, maybe this topic is a bit big for a wee sub forum on a bushcraft website... :bluThinki
Does this mean I won't have to wait for reincarnation to become a seal?
You can be a seal if you want to be.
But you really have to want it. Actually it means nothing of the sort. It means for sexually reproducing organisms, some dna can enter the sex cells from other species and therefore be passed to the next generation. For asexually reproducing organisims, dna from different species can be shared more directly via mitotic reproduction in eukaryotes and fission and conjugation in in prokaryotes.
Hope that clears it all up.
Indepth genetic theory is entirely appropriate for a forum dealing with bushcraft. Want to know what foods we should be eating, why and how we get hypothermia , how we behave pyschologically in certain situations then part of your research should be in genetics. besides this is other chatter, why should a chat that goes indepth into science be curtailed?
Yes mod it if people get in passioned. NO don't mod it because people are talking on an intelligent subject.
Hmmmm...I'm trying to envision a cladogram where a plant virus transfers some plant dna to an anuran or a passerine virus transfers bird dna to a mustelid. Neither amphibians nor mammals would be monophyletic. That's gonna be one bizarre looking cladogram.
I think you are correct in your thinking. I brought the mayans into it, sorry for that but only going on an evoloutionary basis and their beliefs and the articles mention of a virus carriyng the dna change. My thinking being that a virus like this flu thing going round does carry DNA from birds, pigs and humans. To me at least this would be something similar to the virus mentioned in the articles. It has to be to still carry all those strains while changing.
I suppose how you see all this depends on your way of thinking.To some it is nothing, to others it has weight. It is true that we do not understand it all properly yet or the effects of it. The earth is way older than human existence and i believe there is too much we do not know to even begin to say what has happened or will happen..
Hoodoo, i know what your on about now
Google is a wonderful tool.
I've not seen it although it might be true for many prokaryotes, maybe even likely. There is a lot more plasticity there and greater ease of horizontal gene transfer through conjugation. But in the eukaryotic line, there is too much phylogenetic inertia to think of it as a network or mosaic, imo. Current thinking is that there are at least 5 "supergroups" that are possibly reasonably monophyletic. Maybe 'reasonably monophyletic" should be the new cladist mantra.
As more and more evidence shows up documenting horizontal gene transfer, it will become increasingly more difficult for the PhyloCode to succeed. At the moment, I know of only one intro college text book that has adopted it, and then not wholeheartedly.
BTW, this is a much bigger can of worms than most folks realize. Evolutionary systematics is and has been one of the most hostile environments to work in for a long, long time. Some of the early and most toxic battles were well-documented in David Hull's book, Science as a Process.