Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
Calilasseia wrote:Actually GfL, why not trawl through the literature on organisms such as Caenorhabditis elegans and Ciona intestinalis, whose genomes have been sequenced completely, and which possess simpler antecedent forms of the systems seen in mammals?
stevebee92653 wrote:eddie.zdi wrote:Thank you Steve, but I hate to point out that you seem to accept that evolutionary biologists do attempt to disprove ToE, but they draw different conclusions this is in direct contradiction to what you said about no-one on this site attempt to disprove evolution. I gather that a few members do indeed engage in that type of work. I also hate to point out that if every other observer looks at something and draws one conclusion and you draw another there is a strong possibility that rather than a conspiracy, it's much more likely that you are wrong. Now seeing as the overwhelming of the educated, and non-indoctinated (i.e. those not being bullied into a worldview by fear of terrifying overlord) majority disagree with you, you have to entertain the possibilty that you are wrong. I also hold the view that I might be wrong and if some if the entire scientific community said that I was I would have to agree... hence the reason I stopped work on The Doomsday Device.
Science should never be done by majority vote and groupthink. If it was, we wouldn't have a Theory of Relativity, et al.
stevebee92653 wrote:theropod wrote:Steve,
At this point I am motivated to ask a simple question, which hopefully you can answer with a simple response.
What evidence would it take to convince you that the ToE explains the biodiversity found throughout the biosphere?
If there is nothing we can do to convince you that the overwhelming evidence gathered over the past 300 years fully supports a naturalistic explanation for this biodiversity what is the point of continued conversation?
Steve, do you really want to be seen as one so inflexible in your position that NOTHING, including an Everest size mountain of hard evidence, can convince you that your views are incorrect?
RS
How about for a start:
The vid on this thread has a great one, and one that has been avoided like the plague: That a bio-system that formed in a single species was capable of spreading to other speices and how that took place. Or, did thousands of species all form all the same bio-system at about the same time? Not a plausible or possible scenario, of course. CA is not an answer but will be yours.
That natural selection was capable of inventing incredible bio-systems from a uni-celled earth. I know you evos don't like the notion of invention, but bio systems were inventions far more than any invention at the US Patent Office. There was no model or design or prior art for natural selection et al to go by. So how did that take place?
How did the designing and assembling of those systems take place in the species that the inventions formed in?
Being a dentist, this one has really bothered me: That mutaions can form and transfer information to odontolbasts, and ameloblasts so they will "know" when to turn on and turn off the knitting of enamel and dentin which will leave those incredible little sculptures that are our teeth. Since there are millions of odontoblasts and ameloblasts, each one must stop at a different point in time. Are NS and RM capable and powerful enough to originate and relay this information to the cells?
There are so many question on my blog. Feel free to visit and challenge me.
I'm sure these questions will be made great light of by your amigos. That is the typical response. The difficulty for you is that five years ago I would have been arguing with you. Until this science crashed for me. Badly. So I know where you are coming from much more than you would think.
Oh for FUCKS SAKE. I just ruined my own mood. I wrote a huge post attempting to address several of your questions SteveBee, but I accidentially closed the fucking tab I was writing in. I might write it again tomorrow or but I can't be bothered now... I'm depressed. Shutfuckcuntfuckshitcrapfhuckis pgosdfhspåofksdfs....![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Rest assured there are answers for most of your shit. Have patience. I'll go punch holes in my wall somewhere... laterz.
SteveBee wrote:How about for a start:
The vid on this thread has a great one, and one that has been avoided like the plague: That a bio-system that formed in a single species was capable of spreading to other speices and how that took place. Or, did thousands of species all form all the same bio-system at about the same time? Not a plausible or possible scenario, of course. CA is not an answer but will be yours. That natural selection was capable of inventing incredible bio-systems from a uni-celled earth. I know you evos don't like the notion of invention, but bio systems were inventions far more than any invention at the US Patent Office. There was no model or design or prior art for natural selection et al to go by. So how did that take place? How did the designing and assembling of those systems take place in the species that the inventions formed in? Being a dentist, this one has really bothered me: That mutaions can form and transfer information to odontolbasts, and ameloblasts so they will "know" when to turn on and turn off the knitting of enamel and dentin which will leave those incredible little sculptures that are our teeth. Since there are millions of odontoblasts and ameloblasts, each one must stop at a different point in time. Are NS and RM capable and powerful enough to originate and relay this information to the cells? There are so many question on my blog. Feel free to visit and challenge me. I'm sure these questions will be made great light of by your amigos. That is the typical response. The difficulty for you is that five years ago I would have been arguing with you. Until this science crashed for me. Badly. So I know where you are coming from much more than you would think.
That a bio-system that formed in a single species was capable of spreading to other speices and how that took place.
Abstract
The larval and polyp stages of extant Cnidaria are bi-layered with an absence of mesoderm and its differentiation products. This anatomy originally prompted the diploblast classification of the cnidarian phylum. The medusa stage, or jellyfish, however, has a more complex anatomy characterized by a swimming bell with a well-developed striated muscle layer. Based on developmental histology of the hydrozoan medusa this muscle derives from the entocodon, a mesoderm-like third cell layer established at the onset of medusa formation. According to recent molecular studies cnidarian homologs to bilaterian mesoderm and myogenic regulators are expressed in the larval and polyp stages as well as in the entocodon and derived striated muscle. Moreover striated and smooth muscle cells may have evolved directly and independently from non-muscle cells as indicated by phylogenetic analysis of myosin heavy chain genes (MHC class II). To accommodate all evidences we propose that striated muscle-based locomotion coevolved with the nervous and digestive systems in a basic metazoan Bauplan from which the ancestors of the Ctenophora (comb jellyfish), Cnidaria (jellyfish and polyps), as well as the Bilateria are derived. We argue for a motile tri-layered cnidarian ancestor and a monophyletic descent of striated muscle in Cnidaria and Bilateria. As a consequence, diploblasty evolved secondarily in cnidarian larvae and polyps. D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Basic Bauplan; bHLH genes; Cnidaria; Entocodon; Hydrozoan jellyfish; Medusa; Mesoderm; Metazoan evolution; Monophyletic descent; Origin of triploblasty; Prebilaterian ancestor; Striated muscle; Zootype
Or, did thousands of species all form all the same bio-system at about the same time?
Not a plausible or possible scenario, of course. CA is not an answer but will be yours.
That natural selection was capable of inventing incredible bio-systems from a uni-celled earth. I know you evos don't like the notion of invention, but bio systems were inventions far more than any invention at the US Patent Office. There was no model or design or prior art for natural selection et al to go by. So how did that take place?
How did the designing and assembling of those systems take place in the species that the inventions formed in?
Being a dentist, this one has really bothered me: That mutaions can form and transfer information to odontolbasts, and ameloblasts so they will "know" when to turn on and turn off the knitting of enamel and dentin which will leave those incredible little sculptures that are our teeth. Since there are millions of odontoblasts and ameloblasts, each one must stop at a different point in time. Are NS and RM capable and powerful enough to originate and relay this information to the cells?
Wang & Lavrov, 2007 wrote:Homoscleromorpha is a small group in the phylum Porifera (Sponges) characterized by several morphological features (basement membrane, acrosomes in spermatozoa, and cross-striated rootlets of the flagellar basal apparatus) shared with eumetazoan animals but not found in most other sponges. To clarify the phylogenetic position of this group, we determined and analyzed the complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence of the homoscleromorph sponge Oscarella carmela (Porifera, Demospongiae). O. carmela mtDNA is 20,327 bp and contains the largest complement of genes reported for animal mtDNA, including a putative gene for the C subunit of the twin-arginine translocase (tatC) that has never been found in animal mtDNA. The genes in O. carmela mtDNA are arranged in 2 clusters with opposite transcriptional orientations, a gene arrangement reminiscent of those in several cnidarian mtDNAs but unlike those reported in sponges. At the same time, phylogenetic analyses based on concatenated amino acid sequences from 12 mitochondrial (mt) protein genes strongly support the phylogenetic affinity between the Homoscleromorpha and other demosponges. Altogether, our data suggest that homoscleromorphs are demosponges that have retained ancestral features in both mt genome and morphological organization lost in other taxa and that the most recent common ancestor of sponges and other animals was morphologically and genetically more complex than previously thought.
Calilasseia wrote:Even more compellingly, genes that share homologies with genes for more advanced bauplan development in other phyla can be found in modern sponges, suggesting that those genes had a very ancient origin, and that while sponges didn't take the cellular differentiation route of other phyla, they inherited the genes from the common ancestor that permitted cellular differentiation and specialisation in those other phyla.
Latimeria wrote:Good post, Rumraket. But I have a question. As far as I know there are no sponges with even the most rudimentary circulatory system. Was the phylum Porifera just chosen for purposes of illustrating the general concept (in which case I am totally with you), or is there a specific reason that leads you to speculate that it began with sponges? Just curious.
EDIT: Just wanted to point out for Steve's benefit the lack of "groupthink" in this instance, and predict that Rumraket's response will be conducive to coherent and logical conversation in contrast to Steve's myriad ways of ruining productive discussion.
The bithorax complex (BX-C) is a group of homeotic genes in Drosophila melanogaster which are believed to control the differentiation of the abdominal and posterior thoracic segments, located on chromosome III. When these genes are mutated, the third thoracic segment becomes a repeat of the second thoracic segment, creating what is essentially a second thorax. This can result in a second pair of wings, a second stomach, and duplicated thoracic features in varying degrees.[1]
Homeosis is the transformation of one body part into another, arising from mutation in or misexpression of specific developmentally critical genes. It may be caused by mutations in Hox genes, found in animals, or others such as the MADS-box family in plants. Homeosis is a characteristic that has helped insects become as successful and diverse as they are.[1]
Homeotic mutations work by changing segment identity during development. For example, the Ultrabithorax genotype gives a phenotype wherein metathoracic and first abdominal segments become mesothoracic segments.[2] Another well-known example is Antennapedia: a loss-of-function allele causes legs to develop in the place of antennae.
In botany, Rolf Sattler has revised the concept of homeosis (replacement) by his emphasis of partial homeosis in addition to complete homeosis, which is commonly accepted [3].
Homeotic mutants in angiosperms are thought to be rare in the wild: in the annual plant Clarkia, (Onagraceae), homeotic mutants are known where the petals are replaced by a second whorl of sepal like organs, originating via a mutation governed by a single recessive gene [4]. The absence of lethal or deleterous consequnces in floral mutants resuting in distinct morphological expressions has been a factor in the evolution of Clarkia, and perhaps also in many other plant groups [5].
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest