I believe that Adam and Eve were genetic "averages". Probably brown skinned with with darker hair. It is very likely that somewhere along the line someone stuffed up and dropped the gene for the brown pigmentation of hair. Then we have blonde.
Lol dr d no im not getting into ur gravity arguement <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Genetic mutation has obviously happened, but never adding information thats useful. The organism almost alway loses something when that happens, and only rarely will the be benefited in the short term, never in the long.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Aug 29 2003, 05:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 29 2003, 05:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe that Adam and Eve were genetic "averages". Probably brown skinned with with darker hair. It is very likely that somewhere along the line someone stuffed up and dropped the gene for the brown pigmentation of hair. Then we have blonde. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Where did we get redheads, then? Red hair is created by an entirely different pigment.
Did we get Asian people by dropping the "round eye" gene? Or did Adam and Eve have the epicanthic fold, and many of their offspring just happened to "drop" that too?
When people breed dogs, which genes are they dropping? Do they drop the "not elongated" gene to produce wiener dogs, and the "long snout" gene to produce bulldogs?
I dont really know enough about red hair (or hair pigments) to comment Samwise - but I promise I'll look it up and pm you my answer if I can or cant find an answer.
Lol there is no round eye gene. The asian eye is created by a small fatty tissue growth that stretches the skin around it. But that is neutral change (or mutation to put it your way).
As for dogs - being a vet nurse this is my speciality. Frankly - yes. The long noses where bred out of the bulldog. That has absolutely nothing to do with genetic mutation.
EDIT I will if the thread is still alive. I have heard something of the sort talked about, but I cant remember enough of it to be honest in my analysis.
Post it here, please. I'm sure we're all curious. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The point I'm making is that the notion of variation happening by "dropping" features just isn't backed up by anything, and doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Look up "mutation" and "fruit flies" if you want to see COUNTLESS experiments on what sort of crazy stuff can evolve in those things (they have something like 4 chromosomes, so small changes in genotype lead to massive changes in phenotype) over the course of mere months. Examinations of their genetic material show that genes are not "dropped", just switched around.
Heck, you want examples of genes being ADDED, even if it's not to genetic advantage? Down's Syndrome. Caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21. I think Klinefelter's is caused by an extra sex chromosome or something. In these cases, not terribly advantageous, but nobody's disputing that most mutations are bad for you - that's why the evolution of species happens so slowly. Every once in a great while, though, you get a good one, and that's all it takes for a species to evolve.
Oh, and here's a shameless plug for some software of mine that shows natural selection in action, including differentiation between species. I've of course used a genetic scheme that in no way resembles real life, but that's because it'd be boring if it took millions of years for interesting behavior and variation to develop. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Not to mention that most home PCs can't really handle all the data in real genomes, especially in simulations involving hundreds of individuals at once.
Okay I found where I read about human variation - but its in a magazine at my parents house so it might take me a while - I will post it tho.
I've also read on the fruit flies experiments. And again the same applies. To date not one fruit fly mutation has occured naturally or otherwise that is actually of benefit to the fruitfly in the long term. And for evolution - you need that long term, and you need the addition of information.
They messed with the chromosomes, and made stronger flies, but these were sterile. I dont argue that genes arent added, but as you said yourself - it doesnt help the organism. And as to the "every once in a while" idea, we have yet to see that once in a while. Mathematically studies show that it IS possible, but incredibly incredibly unlikely. We are yet to do it in our own labs (or so I am told).
And then the arguement naturally moves on to the age of the earth...
EDIT likewise I have met up with your gene simulator and found it simply hilarious. First off I dont disagree with natural selection. But that gene simulator cracks me up - trying to prove or show nature with PROGRAMMING. Funny that isnt it. I coulda sworn I was trying to claim the same thing - nature is programmed.
Just to elaborate, evolution as envisioned by Darwin is pretty much discredited now. The amount of diversity of life is almost impossible to achieve with gradual changes; many scientists now adhere to a "bursts of evolution" theory that agrees with fossil records showing most evolutionary proliferation (development of new species) came in relatively short bursts with long periods of much slower activity.
And Samwise, I expected better of you than to use dirty tactics against Sirus.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Aug 29 2003, 05:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 29 2003, 05:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lol there is no round eye gene. The asian eye is created by a small fatty tissue growth that stretches the skin around it. But that is neutral change (or mutation to put it your way).
As for dogs - being a vet nurse this is my speciality. Frankly - yes. The long noses where bred out of the bulldog. That has absolutely nothing to do with genetic mutation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Please please please make new replies - it's disconcerting to see you reply to my posts in messages that are higher up on the screen. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
So what exactly defines a "neutral change" versus "adding" something versus "dropping" it? It seems like a growth that's in the "asian eye" but not elsewhere would be something that got "added".
So the long nose was "bred out", but it's not possible for something to be "bred in", correct? What about the bulldog's extra-powerful jaw? What about the Great Dane's unusual size? Are these "neutral changes"? What <i>isn't</i> a neutral change?
Ah thankyou Wheee, I forgot that its all neo darwinism. Original Darwinism is cut now, partly because the fossil record wasnt quite as smooth as it should have been. And thus we have Neo-Darwinism (correct me if I'm wrong), which is evolution happening in fits and bursts. What I find strange is that they dont exactly explain how or why - it just does.
Sounds suspiciously like many a religious theory I have happened upon. Once upon a time, a long time ago, an organisms decided to have an "evolve party". Why? Well, were not sure it was a long time ago. What cause this decision. See previous answer.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Aug 29 2003, 05:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 29 2003, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've also read on the fruit flies experiments. And again the same applies. To date not one fruit fly mutation has occured naturally or otherwise that is actually of benefit to the fruitfly in the long term. And for evolution - you need that long term, and you need the addition of information.
They messed with the chromosomes, and made stronger flies, but these were sterile. I dont argue that genes arent added, but as you said yourself - it doesnt help the organism. And as to the "every once in a while" idea, we have yet to see that once in a while. Mathematically studies show that it IS possible, but incredibly incredibly unlikely. We are yet to do it in our own labs (or so I am told).
And then the arguement naturally moves on to the age of the earth...
EDIT likewise I have met up with your gene simulator and found it simply hilarious. First off I dont disagree with natural selection. But that gene simulator cracks me up - trying to prove or show nature with PROGRAMMING. Funny that isnt it. I coulda sworn I was trying to claim the same thing - nature is programmed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> "Long term" obviously can't be reproduced in the lab, so you can't fault them there. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Stronger flies being sterile with other flies - that actually could point to them being a new species. The definition of what defines two "species" as being distinct is that they are unable to produce viable offspring. A one-member species will therefore never produce any offspring via sexual reproduction. Them's the breaks. If the uberflies had arrived at that point a bit more slowly, in larger numbers, they'd probably have a sufficient genetically similar population to branch off and reproduce on their own. Again, though, hard to completely reproduce the effects of millions of years of evolution in the span of a human lifetime.
I just pointed out Genesaver to show an example of beneficial mutation - when the creatures in that program start out, they have no preconceived notions of how to find food or avoid predators, and there is no gene that can be activated to make them have that behavior. Those beneficial changes arise through the course of random mutation. Just like in nature. (I can tell you, I felt like a daddy when the little buggers starting doing more than what I had programmed them to do, even surprising me with some of the strategies they adopted.)
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 29 2003, 08:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 29 2003, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So what exactly defines a "neutral change" versus "adding" something versus "dropping" it? It seems like a growth that's in the "asian eye" but not elsewhere would be something that got "added".
So the long nose was "bred out", but it's not possible for something to be "bred in", correct? What about the bulldog's extra-powerful jaw? What about the Great Dane's unusual size? Are these "neutral changes"? What <i>isn't</i> a neutral change? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry Sam I was too late to realise my stupidty with the posting <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well a neutral change is like me having longer fingers than you. My kids probably will too. I didnt mutate these long fingers, its just variation in the species. Bugs losing their wings or humans with gills ISNT a neutral change. It creates new species.
Yes, the noses were bred and and the powerful jaws left in. Look at it this way Sam, no one tries to breed a huge dog from a chiuaha. The bulldog was bred from a larger dog with powerful jaws. The great dane also was bred from a larger dog.
Ever notice that with breeding they select dogs that already have the trait they are after. Thats because when you breed you dont create characteristics, you merely pass on what you're already carrying
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Aug 29 2003, 06:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 29 2003, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ah thankyou Wheee, I forgot that its all neo darwinism. Original Darwinism is cut now, partly because the fossil record wasnt quite as smooth as it should have been. And thus we have Neo-Darwinism (correct me if I'm wrong), which is evolution happening in fits and bursts. What I find strange is that they dont exactly explain how or why - it just does. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Genetic mutation. Keep up with us here. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> If it takes a looong time for that one random beneficial mutation to come about, naturally evolution's going to come in short little bursts.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Aug 29 2003, 06:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 29 2003, 06:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, the noses were bred and and the powerful jaws left in. Look at it this way Sam, no one tries to breed a huge dog from a chiuaha. The bulldog was bred from a larger dog with powerful jaws. The great dane also was bred from a larger dog. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How did the larger dog that you used as the starting point get to be larger in the first place? And how is it that when you breed two large dogs, you can get a YET LARGER dog? Shouldn't you just get an average of the two, or at best, a copy of the larger one?
"Variation in the species"? What exactly causes this if not genetic mutation?
BTW, I bet that with enough patience, you COULD breed a huge dog from a chihuahua. It just makes more sense to start with whatever random mutations you have laying around (e.g. the "larger dog") that are already closest to your end goal.
To become a species Sam one of the requirements I believe is that you have to be able to produce viable offspring. Thats why the mule isnt in a species of its own (as always correct me if im wrong).
And as for long term being proved in a lab - if ur sterile that pretty well rules out long term for anything <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
While you may be very impressed with said screensaver - I know for a fact that that thing is programmed. They CANT do anything that isnt programmed into them originally. They dont start mating on your screen because the program invented itself some new code. The mating was programmed in at the beginning.
As for fits and burst evolution - they dont mean single organisms sam. They mean sudden explosions where HEAPS of organisms had an evolve party. Not one but masses. IMHO its merely an attempt to try and stall creationist attacks on the fossil record.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Aug 29 2003, 06:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 29 2003, 06:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> While you may be very impressed with said screensaver - I know for a fact that that thing is programmed. They CANT do anything that isnt programmed into them originally. They dont start mating on your screen because the program invented itself some new code. The mating was programmed in at the beginning. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, mating was programmed into them (if not, you'd never have anything on your screen unless I tried to program in conditions that would allow life to arise spontaneously).
<b>Chasing after food is not.</b> Yet they do it. In fact, they seek food much more ferociously than they seek out mates.
Think on this. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I can write you a very detailed explanation of the creature genome if you want, or you can check out the source yourself, but I assure you, noplace in the program I wrote is there any routine that tells a creature how to find food. I went to a LOT of trouble to set up a neural network that does not have any preprogrammed inclinations whatsoever, so I take a bit of umbrage at anyone claiming that the program does not do what it claims to do. The software that ends up telling these things how to survive in their environment is generated through sheer mutation and selection. Take a look at the "Genes.txt" file if you want to see it.
Anyway. Yes, you're correct about what constitutes a species - the fact that horse+donkey=sterile mule is what shows that horses and donkeys are distinct (but related) species. What I'm saying is that if a fruit fly emerged such that it couldn't mate with other fruit flies, but it WOULD be able to mate with a fruit fly just like it of the opposite gender, it'd be a new species. Not saying that this is necessarily what happened in this case, but mutating a creature to the point where it's sterile by all apperances does not by any means prove that it's impossible to create new species through mutation.
Back to the dog breeding. Suppose you spent thousands upon thousands of years breeding two strains of dog to be as different as possible. Say, as different as a horse is from a donkey. Isn't it conceivable that eventually, those two strains of dog would have so much genetic variation from one another that attempting to cross them via sexual reproduction would not produce fertile offspring?
I hate to say it Samwise - but I still doubt your program. Nothing looks for food unless it knows it has to look for food to survive.
And your right about the fruitflies - that doesnt prove or disprove anything, merely shows just how difficult it is to get a helpful trait from gene mixing/adding, even with human intelligence trying to speed things up.
And as for the crossbreeding - yes. Eventually you could breed them so far apart that they couldnt mate with the other species. Whether they cant mate physically (think chiuaha and great dane trying to have a family) would be easy to make happen. Whether their eggs and sperm would be so dissimilar that they couldnt breed I'm not sure, but I doubt it.
EDIT Dogs are dogs, and have been breeding for thousands of years - and they are STILL dogs. You take sperm and egg from any breed and put them in a test tube and it will create a dog. Whether that dog will survive in real life I'm not sure.
EDIT Curses Sam I have to go, got friends over, will try and answer your post tonight - and I WILL get you that stuff on red hair. Cheers
Has anyone here read "Darwin's Black Box" by, erm...I forget his name? He raises some really good issues and provokes a lot of thought on the issue of evolution. I'm gonna take a risk here and say
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>THIS IS THE END OF 2 PAGES OF PURE HIJACK-AGE</span> Anyway, I promised my views on science earlier, and here goes. I have to agree with Twex for the most part.
Science, as I see it, is a way for humanity to gain power over their interactions with their environments. It is merely a tool, a means to an end of which no one really can foresee. It is not the truth, nor does it claim to be the truth; it merely claims to approximate the behavior of the universe based on general rules derived from observation. Is this a bad thing? Of course not. However, I find it disturbing when people argue that scientific evidence should "prove" or "disprove" a philosophy or moral system. Science is not built to answer those questions; it can merely point to the [observable] existence or nonexistence of certain phenomena or behavior that is a result of those beliefs.
Even then, there is no way to be absolutely sure, since we are acting on the premise that observation is really what happens in real life, e.g. a scientist in the 10th century would completely disbelieve you if you told him the world was round and revolved around the sun, and that the world was made of particles that can act as waves (which he wouldn't even understand the concept of) under certain circumstances. Science is imperfect. The human brain is imperfect. Our knowledge of the universe is imperfect. This does not mean that we have to become Kant-ian agnostics, however, because while we can say that our physical world cannot be fully reproduced by a mathematical equation or a holistic theory, we can still acknowledge the merits of science - it is a good enough approximation that it is useful and will continue to be useful if we keep developing it.
Now, if a philosophical or moral system made claims about the directly observable world (e.g. "people see because they emit rays of light from their eyes") we could refute those claims, and perhaps if the philosophy was structured with one of its basic tenets being that claim, we *might* be able to say "well we can discard that philosophy as inaccurate or incorrect."
An earlier poster said that "science attempts to explain the universe with as few premises as possible. Isn't that good enough for anybody?" and I answer with this: it may be good enough to make your computer run, but it doesn't tell you anything, really, because you can never observe everything at the same time. Remember Newton? Everybody up until Einstein took Newtonian physics for granted; it was *the* way to describe gravitational effects. But wait, Einstein comes along and smashes Newton over the head - the resulting equations of general relativity *approximate* Newtonian physics (which was developed by analysis of empyrical observation, mind you) when an object's velocity is nonrelativistic (<1% c). The fact is, we will never come upon an equation that fully describes the universe, and if we did it would take so long to calculate anything as a result of the equation that it would be useless. Why should an imperfect collection of approximations be good enough for anyone? Unless you are a pure pragmatist or utilitarian, I believe it is quite natural to conclude that science is insufficient for everything.
Thus, I don't believe in science as truth. I don't think anyone can, in light of reason, accept science as truth. I accept that it is a fairly good approximation of our physical observations, but as Twex said, there are limits to what science can and cannot do.
What I'm trying to get at is the fact that despite science being a product of an organized system of observation of physical phenomena and behavior, it really has no claim to "truth". I think it is a useful tool, but I would like to caution people against the view (which I believe many people to hold) that science is the be-all end-all of debates. There are specific debates in which scientific evidence is appropriate, and specific debates in which it is not; the only exception is if you base your philosophy on scientific discovery.
I hope this post has gotten you to think a little more about what you know, what you believe, and what your personal truths are.
lol whee okay I'm taking my knife and leaving the plane, the hijack is over <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes I have started Darwins Black Box - and I have to say your right there. Science has no claim to truth, its merely a tool. And thats my last word on the actually thread topic <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sam if you want to continue the friendly flamewar we might have to start a new thread <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
to allurhive: No, you cannot observe gravity, currently. However there are many scientists trying to get a hold of gravitons, which they believe mathematically satisfy the requirements of being the force-carrier for "gravity"
However, you *can* observe something falling. From that, you can infer a general rule that things fall...and by measuring the approximate times that it takes things to fall certain distances you can also infer a general rule - things fall a certain amount in a certain time. You can thus represent it by equations - which is what Newton did. Granted, it was more rigorous, but it's the same principle. By analysis of many many points of data, did the Newtonian physics come about. Of course you don't *observe* gravity, it's an artificial concept created to describe the behavior of objects and their interactions.
*edit* and I suddenly remembered the author of "Darwin's Black Box" while posting this - it's Michael Behe (I dunno if I spelled that right) .
I didn't read anything posted after your question Wheeee, but coming from an inferior being with no knowledge past grade 11, this is my unbiased and free-willed opinion...
There are three ways to explain things in my opinion, God, philosphy, and Science.
Science in my opinion is able to explain to us how things work in our everyday world; it is our human observation that we obtain the conclusions to certain questions that tap at our brains. Science, or rational-mathematical formula, can explain most things in the universe, but trying to explain something that cannot possible be explained is where God comes in. Thus philosophy is to inquire both sides and understand everything to gain further wisdom and knowledge.
What we see to be true at our point in the universe could be completely different at another point in the universe(s). If our senses are deceiving us, then this keyboard can't really be a keyboard, maybe it is a block of wood? Yes, I understand what you mean there.
In my opinion, the unified theory, the explanation to everything is God. Yes, God...It is really simple, God created the universe!! But yeah, I understand what they are really "looking" for.
If science has brought us this far, then it should bring us further. There is no telling what we will learn in the future, but until humans reach complete thought, which will unlilkely be, we will never know for sure if what we are learning in school everyday and how we view the universe is really true. It is possible that there might be a different field of knowledge in which humans have not yet floundered upon.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Aug 29 2003, 08:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 29 2003, 08:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you understood how they got that resistance maybe you wouldnt have been so quick to say that. They dont gain genetic information for that resistance. Its merely sideways adaption. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The question is Marine, do you?
I'm probably best qualified on this board to answer that, as I'm actually a microbial geneticist. I sit in a lab all day and play around with bacteria to see what effects I can have on them. I then see if I can use them to raise an immune responce but that is a different tangent. The question posed is how do you get antibiotic resistance, and that is done in THREE main ways.
1) Already there. Many bacteria are already resistant to antibiotics to begin with. This is because antibiotics have been used on eachother for millions of years. They have developed tricks to get around it, and the natural population is resistant anyway. When you add an antibiotic you merely select for mutants or bacteria that are resistant at the detriment of those who are not.
2) Mutation. Yes, it is in fact possible to develop novel antibiotic resistance from mutation. This commonly occurs in ribosomes (A streptomycin analogue resistance for example) and other enzymes or metabolic pathways. This can be a gain of DNA, but usually only a codon or two.
3) Horizontal Gene Transfer. If a mutation giving another 3 or four nucleotides isn't enough for you, how about over 300kB pairs? It has been PROVEN that bacteria can shift, shuffle and generally transfer entire bits of their chromosomes or plasmids to other bacteria. This can even occur between entirely different species, and can even occur betwen bacteria and plants (for example). The opportunity for aquiring entirely new traits, especially antibiotic resistance, is ultimately the most powerful adaptative tool that bacteria possess.
So in the end you are completely wrong, and it is best not to criticise an apparent lack of understanding in someone else, when you don't have much more of an understanding to begin with.
[Further stuff]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Transfer of an antibiotic resistance gene from potato to Acinetobacter has also been reported, but only if the plant DNA contained sequence similarities to the bacteria. Frequency of transfer using plant tissue (which could be expected in the field environment) was several orders of magnitude lower than if purified plant DNA was used (see Bertolla & Simonet 1999). Transfer of the nptII gene from genetically modified sugar beet to a strain of Acinetobacter containing a defective nptII gene has also been reported (Nielsen et al. 2000).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just as a quick example (see references!) from the ERMA report on Genetic Engineering. More specific antibiotic transfer examples, especially my pet friend Salmonella, if you want.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 30 2003, 11:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 30 2003, 11:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> aegeri wanna weigh in on the evolution thread? I'm sure there are plenty of myths you can debunk for us (not sarcastic in any way) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, fair enough then <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
(I see there was a bit of confusion in that previous thread).
I believe I do have enough of an understanding of resistance in bacteria to comment.
Does it gain information? As you say, a codon or two. Im personally highly skeptical that it actually gained that. I wouldnt be surprised if that is a mutated or twisted piece of preexisting genetic information. Is it actually completely and utterly new and useful information? Really I'd like an answer I'm not being sarcastic.
As for 1 and 3 - well, its sharing and swapping, its not creating. And thats all well and good - but it doesnt give us new information. And thats whats really needed here.
Aegeri we all share what we know - generally what we read, see, hear or feel. And from what I have read on resistance in bacteria, I feel that I was completely justified in correcting him. If you know more than me - by all means correct me. But do NOT assume that anyone with less knowledge than you is disqualified from commenting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe I do have enough of an understanding of resistance in bacteria to comment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhhh no, no you don't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Does it gain information? As you say, a codon or two.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or over 100,000+ base pairs. Which is a sizable chunk of any organisms genome. That is a massive amount of DNA to take in in one hit. And a codon or two over millions of years is all you really need. Copying a gene can also result, DNA can be gained from transposable elements that replicate themselves, jump out, go to a new bit etc. There is strong evidence suggesting a lot of our junk DNA are in fact bits of viruses, transposons or many other things. Gaining DNA is not just by mutation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Im personally highly skeptical that it actually gained that. I wouldnt be surprised if that is a mutated or twisted piece of preexisting genetic information.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is a mutation that occurs, but these are the hardest to occur. The reason for this is one bp insertion can make an entire gene nonsense or missence very easily. Generally these are selected against. Sometimes however bits and pieces can be copied causing slight changes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for 1 and 3 - well, its sharing and swapping, its not creating. And thats all well and good - but it doesnt give us new information. And thats whats really needed here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Sorry, but it is new information. These stretches of DNA are often completely and utterly new and NEVER seen before in that organism. The integrase sequence that bears nitrogen fixation genes is but one example of a large amount of DNA that has skipping from one bacterium, to many completely different bacteria over time. These are often distinguishing events in an organims life.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aegeri we all share what we know - generally what we read, see, hear or feel. And from what I have read on resistance in bacteria, I feel that I was completely justified in correcting him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I do not think you did. A gain of information can occur in all 3 ways, if you like it or not. Mutation is a very slow aquisition, but there are many agents that can increase mutagenic rates (RF: The ames test for mutagenic agents). HGT allows the transfer of amazingly large pieces of DNA all at once and is infinitely more important than mutation for many bugs. It is also the most common occurance of antibiotic resistance, making you wrong and therefore with no right correcting anyone else. Got that?
I really fail to see why I should post an respone Aegeri, overbearing arrogance is really hard to reply to. This is flamebait territory.
I'm going to have to find out more about the gaining of codons from genetic mutation, cause if thats true then a lot of sources I have been using are defunct.
Swapping DNA is not a gain of information. Sure its a gain in information for that specific organism, but not a net gain on the whole. That information has to come from somewhere to be swapped. Where does it come from? Another organism. Where did that organism get it from? Another organism etc. Somewhere along the line this information has to be created. As I said above, perhaps your right in that information can come from mutations, so I'm going to have to find out more about that.
I argue with the knowledge I have - if yours is greater than fine, share it with me. But DONT YOU DARE tell me that I have no right to post simply because you know more than me. How would you like it if someone came along here, with large amounts of sources backing him and an intricate knowledge of the subject and told you that you were a n00b with no right to correct or even post an arguement simply because he knew more than you? You wouldnt like it, yet thats exactly what your doing here.
This is my final post on this topic as well, as now I'm getting to emotional <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How would you like it if someone came along here, with large amounts of sources backing him and an intricate knowledge of the subject and told you that you were a n00b with no right to correct or even post an arguement simply because he knew more than you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Considering that the subject is epistemology, that scenario is more than unlikely.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm going to have to find out more about the gaining of codons from genetic mutation, cause if thats true then a lot of sources I have been using are defunct.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no doubt they are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I argue with the knowledge I have - if yours is greater than fine, share it with me. But DONT YOU DARE tell me that I have no right to post simply because you know more than me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, I suggest some reading comprehension. I will say this again, you have no right to correct someone in the way you did, if you DO NOT understand what you are talking about. That is what I said, do not put words in my mouth.
You directly said they had a lack of understanding and then put both feet firmly in your mouth by getting your 'correction' wrong.
It's like the 'there is always a bigger fish' argument. You went after a smaller fish, but then a bigger fish came along and ate you. The difference here is, the smaller fish was right (unintentionally or not), you corrected smaller fish in no different a way then I did to you, then got eaten by me. The interesting thing is you've taken exception to me correcting you in an 'arrogant' manner, yet don't realise you did the exact same thing. Aside from being contradictory logic, you're also being highly hypocritical. I suggest you think about that for a while.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How would you like it if someone came along here, with large amounts of sources backing him and an intricate knowledge of the subject and told you that you were a n00b with no right to correct or even post an arguement simply because he knew more than you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would happily agree and I would apologise to the original poster I tried to correct for being wrong. I have done so in the past in a discussion on genetic engineering too. The point is, don't correct someone or claim they have a lack of understanding when you aren't overly much better off.
There is also always a bigger fish, and I understand that and am always ready for it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
Lol dr d no im not getting into ur gravity arguement <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Genetic mutation has obviously happened, but never adding information thats useful. The organism almost alway loses something when that happens, and only rarely will the be benefited in the short term, never in the long.
Where did we get redheads, then? Red hair is created by an entirely different pigment.
Did we get Asian people by dropping the "round eye" gene? Or did Adam and Eve have the epicanthic fold, and many of their offspring just happened to "drop" that too?
When people breed dogs, which genes are they dropping? Do they drop the "not elongated" gene to produce wiener dogs, and the "long snout" gene to produce bulldogs?
Lol there is no round eye gene. The asian eye is created by a small fatty tissue growth that stretches the skin around it. But that is neutral change (or mutation to put it your way).
As for dogs - being a vet nurse this is my speciality. Frankly - yes. The long noses where bred out of the bulldog. That has absolutely nothing to do with genetic mutation.
EDIT I will if the thread is still alive. I have heard something of the sort talked about, but I cant remember enough of it to be honest in my analysis.
The point I'm making is that the notion of variation happening by "dropping" features just isn't backed up by anything, and doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Look up "mutation" and "fruit flies" if you want to see COUNTLESS experiments on what sort of crazy stuff can evolve in those things (they have something like 4 chromosomes, so small changes in genotype lead to massive changes in phenotype) over the course of mere months. Examinations of their genetic material show that genes are not "dropped", just switched around.
Heck, you want examples of genes being ADDED, even if it's not to genetic advantage? Down's Syndrome. Caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21. I think Klinefelter's is caused by an extra sex chromosome or something. In these cases, not terribly advantageous, but nobody's disputing that most mutations are bad for you - that's why the evolution of species happens so slowly. Every once in a great while, though, you get a good one, and that's all it takes for a species to evolve.
<a href='http://www.leadtogold.com/software/genesaver/index2.html' target='_blank'>Genesaver</a>
I've also read on the fruit flies experiments. And again the same applies. To date not one fruit fly mutation has occured naturally or otherwise that is actually of benefit to the fruitfly in the long term. And for evolution - you need that long term, and you need the addition of information.
They messed with the chromosomes, and made stronger flies, but these were sterile. I dont argue that genes arent added, but as you said yourself - it doesnt help the organism. And as to the "every once in a while" idea, we have yet to see that once in a while. Mathematically studies show that it IS possible, but incredibly incredibly unlikely. We are yet to do it in our own labs (or so I am told).
And then the arguement naturally moves on to the age of the earth...
EDIT likewise I have met up with your gene simulator and found it simply hilarious. First off I dont disagree with natural selection. But that gene simulator cracks me up - trying to prove or show nature with PROGRAMMING. Funny that isnt it. I coulda sworn I was trying to claim the same thing - nature is programmed.
And Samwise, I expected better of you than to use dirty tactics against Sirus.
As for dogs - being a vet nurse this is my speciality. Frankly - yes. The long noses where bred out of the bulldog. That has absolutely nothing to do with genetic mutation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please please please make new replies - it's disconcerting to see you reply to my posts in messages that are higher up on the screen. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
So what exactly defines a "neutral change" versus "adding" something versus "dropping" it? It seems like a growth that's in the "asian eye" but not elsewhere would be something that got "added".
So the long nose was "bred out", but it's not possible for something to be "bred in", correct? What about the bulldog's extra-powerful jaw? What about the Great Dane's unusual size? Are these "neutral changes"? What <i>isn't</i> a neutral change?
Sounds suspiciously like many a religious theory I have happened upon. Once upon a time, a long time ago, an organisms decided to have an "evolve party". Why? Well, were not sure it was a long time ago. What cause this decision. See previous answer.
They messed with the chromosomes, and made stronger flies, but these were sterile. I dont argue that genes arent added, but as you said yourself - it doesnt help the organism. And as to the "every once in a while" idea, we have yet to see that once in a while. Mathematically studies show that it IS possible, but incredibly incredibly unlikely. We are yet to do it in our own labs (or so I am told).
And then the arguement naturally moves on to the age of the earth...
EDIT likewise I have met up with your gene simulator and found it simply hilarious. First off I dont disagree with natural selection. But that gene simulator cracks me up - trying to prove or show nature with PROGRAMMING. Funny that isnt it. I coulda sworn I was trying to claim the same thing - nature is programmed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Long term" obviously can't be reproduced in the lab, so you can't fault them there. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Stronger flies being sterile with other flies - that actually could point to them being a new species. The definition of what defines two "species" as being distinct is that they are unable to produce viable offspring. A one-member species will therefore never produce any offspring via sexual reproduction. Them's the breaks. If the uberflies had arrived at that point a bit more slowly, in larger numbers, they'd probably have a sufficient genetically similar population to branch off and reproduce on their own. Again, though, hard to completely reproduce the effects of millions of years of evolution in the span of a human lifetime.
I just pointed out Genesaver to show an example of beneficial mutation - when the creatures in that program start out, they have no preconceived notions of how to find food or avoid predators, and there is no gene that can be activated to make them have that behavior. Those beneficial changes arise through the course of random mutation. Just like in nature. (I can tell you, I felt like a daddy when the little buggers starting doing more than what I had programmed them to do, even surprising me with some of the strategies they adopted.)
So the long nose was "bred out", but it's not possible for something to be "bred in", correct? What about the bulldog's extra-powerful jaw? What about the Great Dane's unusual size? Are these "neutral changes"? What <i>isn't</i> a neutral change? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry Sam I was too late to realise my stupidty with the posting <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well a neutral change is like me having longer fingers than you. My kids probably will too. I didnt mutate these long fingers, its just variation in the species. Bugs losing their wings or humans with gills ISNT a neutral change. It creates new species.
Yes, the noses were bred and and the powerful jaws left in. Look at it this way Sam, no one tries to breed a huge dog from a chiuaha. The bulldog was bred from a larger dog with powerful jaws. The great dane also was bred from a larger dog.
Ever notice that with breeding they select dogs that already have the trait they are after. Thats because when you breed you dont create characteristics, you merely pass on what you're already carrying
Genetic mutation. Keep up with us here. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> If it takes a looong time for that one random beneficial mutation to come about, naturally evolution's going to come in short little bursts.
How did the larger dog that you used as the starting point get to be larger in the first place? And how is it that when you breed two large dogs, you can get a YET LARGER dog? Shouldn't you just get an average of the two, or at best, a copy of the larger one?
"Variation in the species"? What exactly causes this if not genetic mutation?
BTW, I bet that with enough patience, you COULD breed a huge dog from a chihuahua. It just makes more sense to start with whatever random mutations you have laying around (e.g. the "larger dog") that are already closest to your end goal.
And as for long term being proved in a lab - if ur sterile that pretty well rules out long term for anything <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
While you may be very impressed with said screensaver - I know for a fact that that thing is programmed. They CANT do anything that isnt programmed into them originally. They dont start mating on your screen because the program invented itself some new code. The mating was programmed in at the beginning.
As for fits and burst evolution - they dont mean single organisms sam. They mean sudden explosions where HEAPS of organisms had an evolve party. Not one but masses. IMHO its merely an attempt to try and stall creationist attacks on the fossil record.
Yes, mating was programmed into them (if not, you'd never have anything on your screen unless I tried to program in conditions that would allow life to arise spontaneously).
<b>Chasing after food is not.</b> Yet they do it. In fact, they seek food much more ferociously than they seek out mates.
Think on this. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I can write you a very detailed explanation of the creature genome if you want, or you can check out the source yourself, but I assure you, noplace in the program I wrote is there any routine that tells a creature how to find food. I went to a LOT of trouble to set up a neural network that does not have any preprogrammed inclinations whatsoever, so I take a bit of umbrage at anyone claiming that the program does not do what it claims to do. The software that ends up telling these things how to survive in their environment is generated through sheer mutation and selection. Take a look at the "Genes.txt" file if you want to see it.
Anyway. Yes, you're correct about what constitutes a species - the fact that horse+donkey=sterile mule is what shows that horses and donkeys are distinct (but related) species. What I'm saying is that if a fruit fly emerged such that it couldn't mate with other fruit flies, but it WOULD be able to mate with a fruit fly just like it of the opposite gender, it'd be a new species. Not saying that this is necessarily what happened in this case, but mutating a creature to the point where it's sterile by all apperances does not by any means prove that it's impossible to create new species through mutation.
Back to the dog breeding. Suppose you spent thousands upon thousands of years breeding two strains of dog to be as different as possible. Say, as different as a horse is from a donkey. Isn't it conceivable that eventually, those two strains of dog would have so much genetic variation from one another that attempting to cross them via sexual reproduction would not produce fertile offspring?
And your right about the fruitflies - that doesnt prove or disprove anything, merely shows just how difficult it is to get a helpful trait from gene mixing/adding, even with human intelligence trying to speed things up.
And as for the crossbreeding - yes. Eventually you could breed them so far apart that they couldnt mate with the other species. Whether they cant mate physically (think chiuaha and great dane trying to have a family) would be easy to make happen. Whether their eggs and sperm would be so dissimilar that they couldnt breed I'm not sure, but I doubt it.
EDIT Dogs are dogs, and have been breeding for thousands of years - and they are STILL dogs. You take sperm and egg from any breed and put them in a test tube and it will create a dog. Whether that dog will survive in real life I'm not sure.
EDIT Curses Sam I have to go, got friends over, will try and answer your post tonight - and I WILL get you that stuff on red hair. Cheers
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>THIS IS THE END OF 2 PAGES OF PURE HIJACK-AGE</span>
Anyway, I promised my views on science earlier, and here goes. I have to agree with Twex for the most part.
Science, as I see it, is a way for humanity to gain power over their interactions with their environments. It is merely a tool, a means to an end of which no one really can foresee. It is not the truth, nor does it claim to be the truth; it merely claims to approximate the behavior of the universe based on general rules derived from observation. Is this a bad thing? Of course not. However, I find it disturbing when people argue that scientific evidence should "prove" or "disprove" a philosophy or moral system. Science is not built to answer those questions; it can merely point to the [observable] existence or nonexistence of certain phenomena or behavior that is a result of those beliefs.
Even then, there is no way to be absolutely sure, since we are acting on the premise that observation is really what happens in real life, e.g. a scientist in the 10th century would completely disbelieve you if you told him the world was round and revolved around the sun, and that the world was made of particles that can act as waves (which he wouldn't even understand the concept of) under certain circumstances. Science is imperfect. The human brain is imperfect. Our knowledge of the universe is imperfect. This does not mean that we have to become Kant-ian agnostics, however, because while we can say that our physical world cannot be fully reproduced by a mathematical equation or a holistic theory, we can still acknowledge the merits of science - it is a good enough approximation that it is useful and will continue to be useful if we keep developing it.
Now, if a philosophical or moral system made claims about the directly observable world (e.g. "people see because they emit rays of light from their eyes") we could refute those claims, and perhaps if the philosophy was structured with one of its basic tenets being that claim, we *might* be able to say "well we can discard that philosophy as inaccurate or incorrect."
An earlier poster said that "science attempts to explain the universe with as few premises as possible. Isn't that good enough for anybody?" and I answer with this: it may be good enough to make your computer run, but it doesn't tell you anything, really, because you can never observe everything at the same time. Remember Newton? Everybody up until Einstein took Newtonian physics for granted; it was *the* way to describe gravitational effects. But wait, Einstein comes along and smashes Newton over the head - the resulting equations of general relativity *approximate* Newtonian physics (which was developed by analysis of empyrical observation, mind you) when an object's velocity is nonrelativistic (<1% c). The fact is, we will never come upon an equation that fully describes the universe, and if we did it would take so long to calculate anything as a result of the equation that it would be useless. Why should an imperfect collection of approximations be good enough for anyone? Unless you are a pure pragmatist or utilitarian, I believe it is quite natural to conclude that science is insufficient for everything.
Thus, I don't believe in science as truth. I don't think anyone can, in light of reason, accept science as truth. I accept that it is a fairly good approximation of our physical observations, but as Twex said, there are limits to what science can and cannot do.
What I'm trying to get at is the fact that despite science being a product of an organized system of observation of physical phenomena and behavior, it really has no claim to "truth". I think it is a useful tool, but I would like to caution people against the view (which I believe many people to hold) that science is the be-all end-all of debates. There are specific debates in which scientific evidence is appropriate, and specific debates in which it is not; the only exception is if you base your philosophy on scientific discovery.
I hope this post has gotten you to think a little more about what you know, what you believe, and what your personal truths are.
Yes I have started Darwins Black Box - and I have to say your right there. Science has no claim to truth, its merely a tool. And thats my last word on the actually thread topic <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sam if you want to continue the friendly flamewar we might have to start a new thread <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
No, you cannot observe gravity, currently. However there are many scientists trying to get a hold of gravitons, which they believe mathematically satisfy the requirements of being the force-carrier for "gravity"
However, you *can* observe something falling. From that, you can infer a general rule that things fall...and by measuring the approximate times that it takes things to fall certain distances you can also infer a general rule - things fall a certain amount in a certain time. You can thus represent it by equations - which is what Newton did. Granted, it was more rigorous, but it's the same principle. By analysis of many many points of data, did the Newtonian physics come about. Of course you don't *observe* gravity, it's an artificial concept created to describe the behavior of objects and their interactions.
*edit* and I suddenly remembered the author of "Darwin's Black Box" while posting this - it's Michael Behe (I dunno if I spelled that right) .
There are three ways to explain things in my opinion, God, philosphy, and Science.
Science in my opinion is able to explain to us how things work in our everyday world; it is our human observation that we obtain the conclusions to certain questions that tap at our brains. Science, or rational-mathematical formula, can explain most things in the universe, but trying to explain something that cannot possible be explained is where God comes in. Thus philosophy is to inquire both sides and understand everything to gain further wisdom and knowledge.
What we see to be true at our point in the universe could be completely different at another point in the universe(s).
If our senses are deceiving us, then this keyboard can't really be a keyboard, maybe it is a block of wood? Yes, I understand what you mean there.
In my opinion, the unified theory, the explanation to everything is God. Yes, God...It is really simple, God created the universe!!
But yeah, I understand what they are really "looking" for.
If science has brought us this far, then it should bring us further. There is no telling what we will learn in the future, but until humans reach complete thought, which will unlilkely be, we will never know for sure if what we are learning in school everyday and how we view the universe is really true. It is possible that there might be a different field of knowledge in which humans have not yet floundered upon.
simple as that
I want to be show and proved that it works or exists rather than told about it
The question is Marine, do you?
I'm probably best qualified on this board to answer that, as I'm actually a microbial geneticist. I sit in a lab all day and play around with bacteria to see what effects I can have on them. I then see if I can use them to raise an immune responce but that is a different tangent. The question posed is how do you get antibiotic resistance, and that is done in THREE main ways.
1) Already there. Many bacteria are already resistant to antibiotics to begin with. This is because antibiotics have been used on eachother for millions of years. They have developed tricks to get around it, and the natural population is resistant anyway. When you add an antibiotic you merely select for mutants or bacteria that are resistant at the detriment of those who are not.
2) Mutation. Yes, it is in fact possible to develop novel antibiotic resistance from mutation. This commonly occurs in ribosomes (A streptomycin analogue resistance for example) and other enzymes or metabolic pathways. This can be a gain of DNA, but usually only a codon or two.
3) Horizontal Gene Transfer. If a mutation giving another 3 or four nucleotides isn't enough for you, how about over 300kB pairs? It has been PROVEN that bacteria can shift, shuffle and generally transfer entire bits of their chromosomes or plasmids to other bacteria. This can even occur between entirely different species, and can even occur betwen bacteria and plants (for example). The opportunity for aquiring entirely new traits, especially antibiotic resistance, is ultimately the most powerful adaptative tool that bacteria possess.
So in the end you are completely wrong, and it is best not to criticise an apparent lack of understanding in someone else, when you don't have much more of an understanding to begin with.
[Further stuff]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Transfer of an antibiotic resistance gene from potato to Acinetobacter has also been reported, but only if the plant DNA contained sequence similarities to the bacteria. Frequency of transfer using plant tissue (which could be expected in the field environment) was several orders of magnitude lower than if purified plant DNA was used (see Bertolla & Simonet 1999). Transfer of the nptII gene from genetically modified sugar beet to a strain of Acinetobacter containing a defective nptII gene has also been reported (Nielsen et al. 2000).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just as a quick example (see references!) from the ERMA report on Genetic Engineering. More specific antibiotic transfer examples, especially my pet friend Salmonella, if you want.
Ok, fair enough then <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
(I see there was a bit of confusion in that previous thread).
Does it gain information? As you say, a codon or two. Im personally highly skeptical that it actually gained that. I wouldnt be surprised if that is a mutated or twisted piece of preexisting genetic information. Is it actually completely and utterly new and useful information? Really I'd like an answer I'm not being sarcastic.
As for 1 and 3 - well, its sharing and swapping, its not creating. And thats all well and good - but it doesnt give us new information. And thats whats really needed here.
Aegeri we all share what we know - generally what we read, see, hear or feel. And from what I have read on resistance in bacteria, I feel that I was completely justified in correcting him. If you know more than me - by all means correct me. But do NOT assume that anyone with less knowledge than you is disqualified from commenting.
Uhhh no, no you don't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Does it gain information? As you say, a codon or two.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or over 100,000+ base pairs. Which is a sizable chunk of any organisms genome. That is a massive amount of DNA to take in in one hit. And a codon or two over millions of years is all you really need. Copying a gene can also result, DNA can be gained from transposable elements that replicate themselves, jump out, go to a new bit etc. There is strong evidence suggesting a lot of our junk DNA are in fact bits of viruses, transposons or many other things. Gaining DNA is not just by mutation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Im personally highly skeptical that it actually gained that. I wouldnt be surprised if that is a mutated or twisted piece of preexisting genetic information.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is a mutation that occurs, but these are the hardest to occur. The reason for this is one bp insertion can make an entire gene nonsense or missence very easily. Generally these are selected against. Sometimes however bits and pieces can be copied causing slight changes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for 1 and 3 - well, its sharing and swapping, its not creating. And thats all well and good - but it doesnt give us new information. And thats whats really needed here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Sorry, but it is new information. These stretches of DNA are often completely and utterly new and NEVER seen before in that organism. The integrase sequence that bears nitrogen fixation genes is but one example of a large amount of DNA that has skipping from one bacterium, to many completely different bacteria over time. These are often distinguishing events in an organims life.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aegeri we all share what we know - generally what we read, see, hear or feel. And from what I have read on resistance in bacteria, I feel that I was completely justified in correcting him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I do not think you did. A gain of information can occur in all 3 ways, if you like it or not. Mutation is a very slow aquisition, but there are many agents that can increase mutagenic rates (RF: The ames test for mutagenic agents). HGT allows the transfer of amazingly large pieces of DNA all at once and is infinitely more important than mutation for many bugs. It is also the most common occurance of antibiotic resistance, making you wrong and therefore with no right correcting anyone else. Got that?
I'm going to have to find out more about the gaining of codons from genetic mutation, cause if thats true then a lot of sources I have been using are defunct.
Swapping DNA is not a gain of information. Sure its a gain in information for that specific organism, but not a net gain on the whole. That information has to come from somewhere to be swapped. Where does it come from? Another organism. Where did that organism get it from? Another organism etc. Somewhere along the line this information has to be created. As I said above, perhaps your right in that information can come from mutations, so I'm going to have to find out more about that.
I argue with the knowledge I have - if yours is greater than fine, share it with me. But DONT YOU DARE tell me that I have no right to post simply because you know more than me. How would you like it if someone came along here, with large amounts of sources backing him and an intricate knowledge of the subject and told you that you were a n00b with no right to correct or even post an arguement simply because he knew more than you? You wouldnt like it, yet thats exactly what your doing here.
This is my final post on this topic as well, as now I'm getting to emotional <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Considering that the subject is epistemology, that scenario is more than unlikely.
I have no doubt they are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I argue with the knowledge I have - if yours is greater than fine, share it with me. But DONT YOU DARE tell me that I have no right to post simply because you know more than me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, I suggest some reading comprehension. I will say this again, you have no right to correct someone in the way you did, if you DO NOT understand what you are talking about. That is what I said, do not put words in my mouth.
You directly said they had a lack of understanding and then put both feet firmly in your mouth by getting your 'correction' wrong.
It's like the 'there is always a bigger fish' argument. You went after a smaller fish, but then a bigger fish came along and ate you. The difference here is, the smaller fish was right (unintentionally or not), you corrected smaller fish in no different a way then I did to you, then got eaten by me. The interesting thing is you've taken exception to me correcting you in an 'arrogant' manner, yet don't realise you did the exact same thing. Aside from being contradictory logic, you're also being highly hypocritical. I suggest you think about that for a while.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How would you like it if someone came along here, with large amounts of sources backing him and an intricate knowledge of the subject and told you that you were a n00b with no right to correct or even post an arguement simply because he knew more than you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would happily agree and I would apologise to the original poster I tried to correct for being wrong. I have done so in the past in a discussion on genetic engineering too. The point is, don't correct someone or claim they have a lack of understanding when you aren't overly much better off.
There is also always a bigger fish, and I understand that and am always ready for it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->