Forums | MacLife

rolley49 wrote:

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

rolley49 wrote:

And back to this first single cell... Assuming this cell is the least complex organism ever, it will have very very little DNA compared to us.

Wrong. Horribly wrong. Revolting, mind-breakingly wrong. More wrong than sideways incest. If you mean decreasing entropy, then that is a problem with the theory.

See this is the problem with most of the people on the board they just like to bash any  thing contray to their view.

Would you like to explain exactly how I am so so wrong or just yell at me?
But assuming that I am wrong why don't you explain the rest of what I said im that paragraph.

More [Complex] DNA != More Complex Organism (or vica-versa) ; why would it? There is a problem with evolution if you view at as DNA (etc.) decreasing in entropy. I don't believe that is a good way to view it. 'More evolved' species' genetic infomation is not more complex or organised than 'less evolved' species'.

jerwin wrote:

resedit wrote:

The Tuatara
....
Now, since the ice layer records allegedly record periods of both global warming and global cooling over a hundred thousand years, and unlike crocodilians which can move with the weather - Tuataras are kind of restricted to the available land on the Islands of New Zealand where they currently live and have lived for a very long time, how is it that Tuataras have not gone extinct from populations that are entirely one sex or other hatching?

Have any biologists attempted to explain this?

There's one fundamental difference... the presence of humans. In periods of rapid climate change, the tuatara may have been able to adapt to the new climate, or migrate to new habitats, etc. It's a bit more difficult now that they have more (human introduced) competitors who are all too willing to take advantage of population declines, and can't migrate because the nearest available habitat is now a parking garage.

New Zealand is a group of islands. Where is it going to migrate to?

i think this thread is damn fine idea.

say oatie, did this idea just "spring up" in your mind, or did it slowly evolve?

more or less wrote:

say oatie, did this idea just "spring up" in your mind, or did it slowly evolve?

It was more of a slow ev... hey! 

resedit wrote:

Have any biologists attempted to explain this?

In times with few males, males are more valuable offspring as they will have more mating opportunities.

In times with few females, females are more valuable as they will have a choice of many males, and can go for high quality.

Thus, a creature that can control the its reproductive output to favor the valuable sex will be selected for.

Tuataras (and various alligators, etc.) can do this by manipulating the temperatures of their nest.  If they have some knowledge of current sex ratios, they can then manipulate their output from year to year by manipulating their nest conditions.

And, they will do that because natural selection says that they should be selected to do that sort of thing to maximize their genetic input into the next generation (and generations to come).

There you go... a testable hypothesis driven by evolutionary theory.

Can ID do that?

I'll be waiting...

The advantage of having many threads on this subject is, we get to watch res get pwned on a daily basis, then blithely act as if no pwnage had taken place. It was good for a chuckle.

rolley49 wrote:

My dad's a Ph D. Biochemist.

Congrats.
I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

It just makes me think of ATHF: "My dad owns a dealership."

Is your dad posting? No? Then shut up.

more or less wrote:

say oatie, did this idea just "spring up" in your mind, or did it slowly evolve?

actually, the idea came out after he had a bowl of spaghetti.

resedit wrote:

Can ID do that?

I'll be waiting...

Yes, ID scientists test hypothesis all the time.

Such as...?

rolley49 wrote:

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

More [Complex] DNA != More Complex Organism (or vica-versa) ; why would it? There is a problem with evolution if you view at as DNA (etc.) decreasing in entropy. I don't believe that is a good way to view it. 'More evolved' species' genetic infomation is not more complex or organised than 'less evolved' species'.

The DNA isn't any more complex in humans than in singled celled organisms because DNA is only a series of ATCG nitrogen bases.

W.T.F. "to be or not to be that is the question" is not more complex than "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" because they both only use 26 Romanic characters? No, the first contains more objective infomation. That is what I mean by complexity.

However, more complex organisms such as humans definatly have longer DNA sequences.  The question is how does evolution explain where all this new information came from.

Wrong and Wrong. Some genome sizes from CBSA, Technical University of Denmark:
Peromyscus floridanus:             2,768,300,000 base pairs [Mouse 1]
Homo sapiens:                          3,404,800,000 base pairs [Human]
Gorilla gorilla:                           3,523,200,000 base pairs [Gorilla]
Permyscs maniculatus:              4,006,800,000 base pairs [Mouse 2]
Permyscs eremiticus:                 5,294,700,000 base pairs [Mouse 3]
Allium cepa:                            18,000,000,000 base pairs [Onion] Less complex than mouse & gorilla? Possibly, it has less tissue types
Amoeba proteus:                  290,000,000,000 base pairs [Large Protozoan ; considered a basic lab guinea pig]
Amoeba dubia:                     670,000,000,000 base pairs [Interesting amoeba, but still basically simple]

And what do you mean this is not a good way to look at evolution?  Evolution has everything to do with DNA and if your saying that evolution has a problem viewing it as DNA your saying that your theory is flawed!  How else are you going to look at evolution if your excluding DNA?

I meant exactly as I said ; viewing evolution as an increase in infomation is flawed. Interestingly there is a minor theory that ameobae with huge genomes were the first creatures (somehow) and that DNA decreased from them (most amphibians have relatively large genomes) ; lots of problems with it though... One of the problems that the research side has faced, is that it is far easier to sequence smaller genomes, so a cursory glance at known data indicated that most organisms had smaller genomes than humans.

Last edited by Zetetic Apparatchik (2005-08-21 11:20 am)

resedit wrote:

But is there enough time for that selection to modify the species when it takes 13 years for a female to come to breeding age?

Good question.  Note, that it is a question that you developed from an evolutionary standpoint.  Not from an ID standpoint.

Anyhow, I'd argue that yes...time does not make a difference, but rather generations do.  Things with much longer reproductive cycles and lifespans can show similar patterns.

resedit wrote:

As far as I know, Tuataras do not tend their nests, which take over a year to hatch. Some reptiles, like Pythons and even some colubrids when it is really cold, will wrap around the eggs and twitch their bodies to increase the temperature if needed. Tuataras do not do this. How would they go about cooling the eggs during a period of global warming? Have they ever been observed doing this?

I don't know the tending patterns of these reptiles.  However, even if they do not tend, they can build nests with certain thermal properties.  This can be tested.

A testable hypothesis - sure, but is it what happens?
I'd be interested in any link demonstrating on how the Tuatara does this.

I don't know, but the power of evolutionary theory allows testable hypotheses.  ID does not.

Yes, ID scientists test hypothesis all the time.

Based on ID?  Or otherwise?  Show me a testable ID hypothesis.

I thought someone like mo'ron had some good counter information or such on carbon/radioactive dating of rocks and such...that the starting amount isn't as important as resedit wants it to be, or that there really isn't many ways for the isotope to be altered by other radioactivity.




I just "appeal to authority" and trust the people in white lab coats.