[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

To SWG and G Barnett, I use the terms micro and macroevolution as they were used in the physical anthropology and biology courses I took in college. I doubt either of you have a better grasp on the subject than my professors did - and I earned As in those classes, FWIW. So until you find me an authoritative source backing your assertions to the contrary, I'll continue to dismiss your condescending rhetoric.

Sorry, Big Mac. If your teachers said that they need to get fired ASAP. There is no such thing as micro and macroevolution. Only evolution.



ps: don't bother mentioning the courses you took in college. I'm a molecular biologist working in the field of genetics and evolution.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You just presented a bunch of irrelevant information and creationist talking points.

poopy-butt stinkface!

My talking points are my own. However, your accusation of my points being creationist is very unique. Congrats on such a well thought-out and refreshing angle.

Him: "The body specifically produces a tail at one point during development, showing that humans have retained coding for tails."

How does this show coding for tails? Can you establish that with anything at all resembling sound scientific principle? Otherwise, you're just presenting a bunch of irrelevant information and atheist talking points. Not atheist? What do I care, I'm not creationist.

Just to be clear here; "because it looks like it could be a tail" is not sound scientific principle.

You: "Some people have an abnormal condition where they don't develop a face. So there."

This was more in reference to the fact that some are born with the "tails". In case you failed to notice, I'm calling BS on the whole tail tale.

Me; Recapitulation is not only entirely fruitless science, but about the most desperate an attempt at fortifying dogma for the easily excitable as I've ever seen.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Sorry, Big Mac. If your teachers said that they need to get fired ASAP. There is no such thing as micro and macroevolution. Only evolution.

ps: don't bother mentioning the courses you took in college. I'm a molecular biologist working in the field of genetics and evolution.

I've come across the term macroevolution in legitimate publications. Dobzhansky himself used the term in his modern synthesis. It can be found in many (most?) textbooks on evolution and Gould and Eldridge use it when discusing punctuated equilibrium.

I do agree that Big Mac has demonstrated that he hasn't a clue about how evolution works.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Saetre

I do agree that Big Mac has demonstrated that he hasn't a clue about how evolution works.

Prove it.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Prove it.

You've proved quite nicely on your own that you have no clue about evolution.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Prove it.

You say things that a person who understands evolution wouldn't say. I can't say I know what's making you say these strange things, but an understanding of evolution would surely prevent it.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Moreover, if this fish did indeed evolve, that doesn't speak well for evolution, does it?"

Originally Posted by Big Mac

But as far as this fish is concerned, if you want to ascribe its existence to evolution, I'm fine with that. If you want to believe evolution creates crappy organisms, that's great. It's still a fish, though, and its offspring will continue to be fish no matter how many generations pass.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Saetre

You say things that a person who understands evolution wouldn't say. I can't say I know what's making you say these strange things, but an understanding of evolution would surely prevent it.

Regarding the first comment, the thrust of this thread was that the organism in question is unusual and does not seem to be "designed" intelligently. Well, if that's the case, if it's so odd, ugly and misshapen, I don't see why evolutionists would want to claim it as a shining example of evolution. Similarly, if one wishes to believe mutations drive the evolutionary process, then invariably diseases like Down Syndrome are wonderful "proofs" of evolution. Look at all of the great things that happen to humans when parts of our population mutate - chromosomal mutations definitely do wonders for us. As for the second quotation, as I said, I reject macroevolution. If that qualifies as a "strange thing" to you then so be it. But simply because I reject a major feature of the theory of evolution does not mean I lack comprehension of it.

But thank you for challenging the notion that the scientific community does not use the terms macroevolution and microevolution. They are major cleavages in evolutionist thought, terms no less accepted than punctuated equilibrium and gradualism.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

But thank you for challenging the notion that the scientific community does not use the terms macroevolution and microevolution. They are major cleavages in evolutionist thought, terms no less accepted than punctuated equilibrium and gradualism.

The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is neither divisive nor all that important. It isn't even possible to make a clear distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, because they refer to same thing only viewed from different-size chunks of time. They are essentially the same process, it is just that patterns that are invisible at the species level become apparent over broad stretchs of evolutionary time. Processes like adaptive radiation and extinction are very important when talking about macroevolutionary changes, but comparatively minor when measuring changes in allele frequencies within a species over years and decades.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

poopy-butt stinkface!

My talking points are my own. However, your accusation of my points being creationist is very unique. Congrats on such a well thought-out and refreshing angle.

Whether they are your own, they are also creationist talking points, and they're even less unique than somebody pointing that out.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This was more in reference to the fact that some are born with the "tails". In case you failed to notice, I'm calling BS on the whole tail tale.

Fetal development: What happens during the first trimester? - MayoClinic.com

Work for you?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

which direction are they pointing and which way does its mouth open?

There's a picture right in the article, hun. But since you've apparently never seen a flounder in your life, here's another picture:



The mouth opens pretty much at a right angle to the fish's body, and the eyes are on the UPPER side of the fish.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This was more in reference to the fact that some are born with the "tails". In case you failed to notice, I'm calling BS on the whole tail tale.

Sometimes, I have to wonder if you people even ever HAD biology classes.

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB...rtikelNr=84863

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika

There's a picture right in the article, hun. But since you've apparently never seen a flounder in your life, here's another picture:

I suggest you look at the fish in the article provided by the OP and observe how it swims and what it's doing then sweet-cheeks, but since you're too busy trying to be a smart ass you've apparently never seen one actually move.

The mouth opens pretty much at a right angle to the fish's body, and the eyes are on the UPPER side of the fish.

Crazy huh? If you're doing a handstand your face would be able to kiss my rear.

[Dark Helmet]

OK i'm sold. God definitely made it out of clay 5000 years ago and it just had a "micro-evolution" to look a bit silly.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Whether they are your own, they are also creationist talking points, and they're even less unique than somebody pointing that out.

I disagree. Obviously.

Fetal development: What happens during the first trimester? - MayoClinic.com

Work for you?

No and I'll tell you why;

Originally Posted by from your link

Your baby is now nearly 1 inch long and weighs a bit less than 1/8 of an ounce. The embryonic tail at the bottom of your baby's spinal cord is shrinking, helping him or her look less like a tadpole and more like a developing person.

and...

By now, your baby's vital organs have a solid foundation. The embryonic tail has disappeared completely, and your baby has fully separated fingers and toes. The bones of your baby's skeleton begin to form.

Ever driven an audi? You know what folks in the know call a brake accumulator? They call it a bomb. Why? Because it looks like a little bomb. Crazy huh? Sometimes we associate one thing with another. I asked you to establish your argument that the coccyx is a tail using sound, scientific principle and then I clarified with; "oh, and saying it looks like one doesn't count."

What do you provide for me? Pictures of embryonic development and a couple of ambiguous word-associations. BTW; list for me the primates that have tails.

Thanx Dr. (fill in the blank)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

OK i'm sold. God definitely made it out of clay 5000 years ago and it just had a "micro-evolution" to look a bit silly.

Do you really believe that? If so, a congratulations is in order. I'm not sure even the Creationists would accept your esteemed membership.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I suggest you look at the fish in the article provided by the OP and observe how it swims and what it's doing then

So, if the fish moves lying flat on its side, how is either of those eyes on the UNDERSIDE of the flounder?

And mouth is more or less vertical.

I still have no idea what you're getting at.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No and I'll tell you why;

Originally Posted by analogika

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This was more in reference to the fact that some are born with the "tails". In case you failed to notice, I'm calling BS on the whole tail tale.

Sometimes, I have to wonder if you people even ever HAD biology classes.

Human Tail with Noncontiguous Intraspinal Lipoma and Spinal Cord Tethering:Case Report and Embryologic Discussion - Karger Publishers

Babies born with tails.

Just cause you called bullshit.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I disagree. Obviously.

You are either deeply in denial or have not talked to very many creationists.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Ever driven an audi? You know what folks in the know call a brake accumulator? They call it a bomb. Why? Because it looks like a little bomb. Crazy huh? Sometimes we associate one thing with another. I asked you to establish your argument that the coccyx is a tail using sound, scientific principle and then I clarified with; "oh, and saying it looks like one doesn't count."

A tail is an appendage that protrudes from the hindquarters of an animal. Does this protrude from said creature's hindquarters? Yes it does. QED.

What more are you looking for?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by analogika

Babies born with tails.

Just cause you called bullshit.

"Tail-like appendiges" present due to spinal disorders. Not true tails.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Fascinating, but I'm kind of surprised that the article didn't leave out some of the stranger aspects of the flounder, such as the fact that it's actually born with one eye on each side, just like other fish. One of the eyes actually migrates from one side to the other as the fish matures.

That also happened to the kid who sat next to Scarlett Johansson in class.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by analogika

And mouth is more or less vertical.

There seems to be a definition problem!
Does a human mouth open vertical or horizontal from your point of view?

I'd say vertical (the human) - that's why I would say the flounder mouth opens horizontal!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika

Babies born with tails.

Why stop there?

Just cause you called bullshit.

This cat descends from the two-tongued zealoterectus talking out of both sides of his mouth.

... and I'm still calling bullshit.

[Big Mac]

...

[analogika]

Originally Posted by badidea

There seems to be a definition problem!
Does a human mouth open vertical or horizontal from your point of view?

I'd say vertical (the human) - that's why I would say the flounder mouth opens horizontal!

Would you believe I ran into that problem while writing my post, and that's why I was very careful to say "is" rather than "opens"?

[BushCheney08]

As Big Mac pointed out, this fish will never have a horse baby, just like no dinosaur had a monkey baby that somehow magicaly became a person. That's why this fish doesn't prove evolution. Maybe there was microevolution that made this fish ugly, but really its all just one of G-d's mysteries.

[analogika]

Of course, fish having horse babies and dinosaurs having monkey babies that somehow magicaly [sic] became a person is what evolution is all about.

Dolt.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by BushCheney08

As Big Mac pointed out, this fish will never have a horse baby, just like no dinosaur had a monkey baby that somehow magicaly became a person. That's why this fish doesn't prove evolution. Maybe there was microevolution that made this fish ugly, but really its all just one of G-d's mysteries.

Evolution would be instantly and positively refuted if a fish ever had a horse baby or a monkey had a human baby. Get educated.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No matter on what side of the head the eyes are.

This fish is nothing compared to some of the strangest living creatures inhabiting this planet. To stupid humans this looks funny.

I don't even see the point that blog is making.. though I am trying. I am no proponent of intelligient design and think that it is a very stupid hypothesis.

V

Obviously, what is ugly is Evil. You are sooooooooo wrong!

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by analogika

There's a picture right in the article, hun. But since you've apparently never seen a flounder in your life, here's another picture:



The mouth opens pretty much at a right angle to the fish's body, and the eyes are on the UPPER side of the fish.

This is the personification of Evil or my name is not Pendergast.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Obviously, what is ugly is Evil. You are sooooooooo wrong!

Of course

Nothing beautiful to our eyes is evil and everything ugly to our eyes is evil and twisted and deserves to be stomped on!

Perhaps this fish is regarded as a real hunk by its peers..



.. it's perhaps a David Hasselhoff or a Pamela Anderson, and here we are saying it is ugly and evil.

V

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Of course

Nothing beautiful to our eyes is evil and everything ugly to our eyes is evil and twisted and deserves to be stomped on!

Perhaps this fish is regarded as a real hunk by its peers..



.. it's perhaps a David Hasselhoff or a Pamela Anderson, and here we are saying it is ugly and evil.

V

Damn! Now I feel ashamed for mu judgemental attitude!

Curse you voodoo! Curse you!

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Regarding the first comment, the thrust of this thread was that the organism in question is unusual and does not seem to be "designed" intelligently. Well, if that's the case, if it's so odd, ugly and misshapen, I don't see why evolutionists would want to claim it as a shining example of evolution. Similarly, if one wishes to believe mutations drive the evolutionary process, then invariably diseases like Down Syndrome are wonderful "proofs" of evolution. Look at all of the great things that happen to humans when parts of our population mutate - chromosomal mutations definitely do wonders for us. As for the second quotation, as I said, I reject macroevolution. If that qualifies as a "strange thing" to you then so be it. But simply because I reject a major feature of the theory of evolution does not mean I lack comprehension of it.

Man, you don't understand the process of evolution, yet, as someone of the right, you should!

The evolution process favors mutations leading to survival. Humans with the Down Syndrome would not survive long in the wild, therefore, favorising the transmission of genes without the mutation.

But that mutations have several causes amonsgt which, the envoronmental ones, so it is bound to come back anyway.

Evoltion is not about getting better; it's about favoring genes that can survive against the odds.

That we care for our weaks and diseased is only a cultural accident. History abounds of people eliminated or left on their own because of their difformities. Who knows if in the future, the simple act of "improving" our babies will not be a conter-evoluitionist action? Your own choices for a partner proceed from the same process; good looks, good genes and reproduction. And if it was not you who picked a partner, it was your parents, using the same parameters.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Evoltion is not about getting better; it's about favoring genes that can survive against the odds.

Absolutely true! Evolution is blind. It only allows organisms to adapt to the ever changing environment on Earth. It doesn't make any species better with time.. if a positive trait occurs that doesn't directly help with the survival of the species then it is a coincidence.

A favorable mutation and damn those are rare!

Evolution is also not really visible in individuals, which makes it hard to understand for laymen. I had to think about it a lot before I understood it, but evolution works on the level of species. Not the level of individuals. They are not important as such. Just their role in the species.

So even if a favorable mutation occurs and that mutation becomes part of the species, will it take over the species? Not necessarily. There has to be an evolutionary pressure for that to occur. Alternatively the founder effect could make such a mutation species-wide.

Take for instance immunity to the HIV virus. Those who have a CCR-5 mutation from one parent are more immune to HIV and those who have CCR-5 mutation from both parents are completely HIV immune. This is what one would consider to be a beneficial mutation.

This gene exists in about 20% of Europeans, but is almost non-existant in Asians or Africans. This means that about 1% of Europeans in completely HIV immune and 19% partially immune. Does this mean that due to AIDS that the frequency of this gene will increase?

No, there isn't enough evolutionary pressure. There are too few who become HIV infected. This is a beneficiary mutation that will probably never spread species wide. Because evolution only ensures that you are able to procreate and die. If you get sick after you procreate.. well. Evolution doesn't care about that part of your life

V

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

The evolution process favors mutations leading to survival. Humans with the Down Syndrome would not survive long in the wild, therefore, favorising the transmission of genes without the mutation.

Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) is not a mutation. It's incomplete meiosis (chromosome splitting during the production of gametes - usually the egg) that leads to doubling of genetic material in the gamete (usually the entire chromosome 21).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Gene duplications are mutations. Why not chromosome duplications?

[analogika]

Sorry, you appear to be correct:

Mutation - EvoWiki

I always thought the term "mutation" referred to a sub-chromosomal scale. I was wrong.