The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[Phlegmak]

Ali G tends to make me cringe more than laugh. But the banana bit was sort of funny, I agree.

In case you didn't know, he's Sacha Baron Cohen, the same guy that does Borat and Bruno.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0b_lTEgICw

 

[Lord Parkin]

Yeah, I do realise that. For whatever reason, I actually enjoy Borat, but I find his other characters are usually a little cringe-worthy rather than inspiring real laughs.

 

[Perfection]

Perfection

Do you have a point to make in singling me out?

I'm just confused onto your intentions and arguments.

 

[Phlegmak]

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/070416_mite_sex.html


Pretty micrograph:

Tiny Creatures Rediscover the Joy of Sex
By Charles Q. Choi
Special to LiveScience
posted: 16 April 2007
05:00 pm ET

Tiny spider relatives have rediscovered the joy of sex, regaining the ability to mate after their arachnid ancestors lost it, marking a reproductive first in the annals of animal evolution.

There are 45 known species of these spider relatives, mites known as Crotoniidae, which are roughly the size of a pin head, at 1.5 millimeters across.

The Crotoniidae reproduce by having sex, which wouldn't be too strange except that they are very similar physically to Camisiidae, a family of some 80 mite species that all reproduce asexually via parthenogenesis, in which females give birth to young without having sex with males.

Evolutionary biologist Katja Domes at the Technical University of Darmstadt in Germany and her colleagues examined genetic sequences in two Crotoniidae species and a diverse range of 13 other mite species. Their calculations show the sexual Crotoniidae evolved from the asexual Camisiidae, the first known reversal to sexuality from asexuality within the animal kingdom. (The only other known such reversal is a plant, the mouseear hawkweed, or Hieracium pilosella.)

Domes and her colleagues detailed their findings online April 16 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Crotoniidae and the Camisiidae are types of mites known as oribatids, where parthenogenesis is unusually widespread, seen in nearly one-tenth of the roughly 10,000 known oribatid species. Scientists know many parthenogenetic oribatids produce rare, sterile males, suggesting the ability to produce functional males was preserved but "dormant" in the Camisiidae and reactivated in the Crotoniidae.

When it comes to why the Crotoniidae regained sexuality, Domes noted these mites often colonize trees. Tree-dwelling oribatids are nearly all sexual, while soil-dwelling oribatids such as Camisiidae are predominantly parthenogenetic.

If plenty of resources are available over a long time to a species, as they are with soil-dwelling mites, parthenogenesis seems to be favored, Domes explained. On the other hand, an environment with fewer resources and more enemies, such as one that tree-dwellers face, "could have caused the return to sexual reproduction in the Crotoniidae and may also be an explanation for the origin of sex in the first place," she told LiveScience.

"The most important implication is that contrary to general opinion, sexual reproduction can be regained long after it is lost," evolutionary geneticist Bill Birky at the University of Arizona told LiveScience.

"This implies that the genes required for producing males can be retained, even when those genes are rarely if ever used to produce males," he said. "This could be because male production is important even though it is rare, or it could be because those genes have important functions other than male production."

 

[Che Guava]

FUNKY! I used to have to identify oribatids all the time for my thesis...well, more like identify them AS oribatics, since mite taxonomy would be a thesis in itself....

 

[Perfection]

While interesting I don't want to put evolution related articles here unless they specifically involve creation/evolution.

 

[Che Guava]

On the contrary, perfection, this article shows quite well that mutations can both 'gain' and 'lose' information, something that the creationists here seem to dispute

 

[Perfection]

On the contrary, perfection, this article shows quite well that mutations can both 'gain' and 'lose' information, something that the creationists here seem to dispute

Yeah, but we already know that. Darwin himself knew that evolution can do these things. This just gives the impression that evolution is somehow still seeking scientific validation.

 

[Phlegmak]

Yeah, but we already know that. Darwin himself knew that evolution can do these things. This just gives the impression that evolution is somehow still seeking scientific validation.

Among creationists, it is still seeking scientific validation. Isn't this thread about educating creationists? Since it is, any evolution related article seems relevant to me.

 

[Che Guava]

Yeah, but we already know that. Darwin himself knew that evolution can do these things. This just gives the impression that evolution is somehow still seeking scientific validation.

Then consider it a point of discussion: Any creationists out there to explain how a creature that has lost and regained the ability to sexually reproduce fits into their theory of the origin?

But I get your point, we shouldn't post just any old article on evolution here..

 

[Perfection]

Among creationists, it is still seeking scientific validation. Isn't this thread about educating creationists? Since it is, any evolution related article seems relevant to me.

Well, generally the evidence shown by the media with new evolutionary discoveries is pretty weak compared to the evidence shown elsewhere.

 

[Leeksoup]

First off, sorry for the bump.

Second off, I'll bite. I'm a creationist, I believe that God created us and the entire universe over a period of billions of years, and that the word 'day' in the bible is figurative, since 'day' is used later in the bible to mean 'a period of time', not necessarily a day.
Anyway, I have five questions to the evolutionists that are totally scientific.

1) Where is the crappy bird with heavy bones and no talons? Or, where is the crappy dinosaur with hollow, weak bones and a toothless beak?

2)If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys in abundance?

3)Why can I see some of the 'missing link' skeletons that are supposedly between apes and humans and think "hey, I know that guy. I saw him last week"? Seriously.

4)This might not be what we're discussing, but I think it's funny when archaeologists find a stone axe and say "ah, this is 200 million years old". Um, sure, I can believe the ROCK is that old... I mean, does the rock change when it gets carved? Does its carbon clock stop?

5)Lastly, explain this to me:
In order for a mutation to pass on from one generation to the next, it has to mutate a sex cell as it is about to form a zygote (before the body can see it as cancer and kill it). Okay, rare, but plausible. Then, assuming it has mutated, it must be a good mutation on top of it, or else the child will die. This is incredibly rare on its own, but remember, it must also be in a sex cell that is about to fertilize/get fertilized. AND NOW, on top of all this, the mutation must affect a chromosome in a way that makes it dominant, so when the child mates, the trait is manifested. The odds of this happening even once are mathematically insignificant, so how could it happen for all the species on Earth?

 

[Perfection]

First off, sorry for the bump.

No need to apologize, this is why the thread exists!

1) Where is the crappy bird with heavy bones and no talons? Or, where is the crappy dinosaur with hollow, weak bones and a toothless beak?

Well first off there are intermediates between birds and dinosuars (Archaeopteryx springs to mind) with properties shared by both. They however aren't "crappy" and are well adjusted to their niche. The reason for this is because we only get a tiny tiny sample of ancient life and so only the species with sizable populatinos show up so some transitions are missing and you get a stepped progression of hardy well-adapted species from the ancestor to the modern type.

2)If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys in abundance?

Because only a group of monkeys evolved into humans, some didn't. It's called divergence and is very common.

3)Why can I see some of the 'missing link' skeletons that are supposedly between apes and humans and think "hey, I know that guy. I saw him last week"? Seriously.

Because you aren't that good with skeletons and don't know what to look for? Skeletons are tricky business, you need some training to understand them

4)This might not be what we're discussing, but I think it's funny when archaeologists find a stone axe and say "ah, this is 200 million years old". Um, sure, I can believe the ROCK is that old... I mean, does the rock change when it gets carved? Does its carbon clock stop?

You generally can't date the carving of stones. You may have been mistaken onto what exactly was being dated. Can you tell me more about which arceologists you are talking about and where they said this?

5)Lastly, explain this to me:
In order for a mutation to pass on from one generation to the next, it has to mutate a sex cell as it is about to form a zygote (before the body can see it as cancer and kill it). Okay, rare, but plausible.

That's incorrect, the vast majoirty of mutations aren't detected as cancereous. You have the whole cell chain from zygote to gamete (sperm or egg).

Then, assuming it has mutated, it must be a good mutation on top of it, or else the child will die.

Most mutations are actually harmless and don't do much. And Good mutations do occur.

This is incredibly rare on its own, but remember, it must also be in a sex cell that is about to fertilize/get fertilized. AND NOW, on top of all this, the mutation must affect a chromosome in a way that makes it dominant, so when the child mates, the trait is manifested.

Not true, it can hide in the childs' genes and passed to its ancestors until two mate and it is expressed.

The odds of this happening even once are mathematically insignificant, so how could it happen for all the species on Earth?

The odds are infact quite high! We are in fact all mutants it's just that the effects are not always that noticeable, especially when they effect polygenic phenomena like personality.

 

[The Last Conformist]

1) Where is the crappy bird with heavy bones and no talons? Or, where is the crappy dinosaur with hollow, weak bones and a toothless beak?

You seem to have some strange ideas of the ordering of changes, but if you want a classical dino with hollow bones take a look at any big sauropod.

2)If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys in abundance?

If you descend from your grandparents, why are your cousins still around?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Heh, that's a very sig-worthy statement.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Or better: if cars came after trains, why are trains still around?

Cars fulfill one niche, trains another. Yeah, their purposes overlap, but they aren't identical. When cars arrived on the scene, trains became an endangered species, but they still survived because for some travels, a train is just more efficient. In some ecological niches, a babboon just outcompetes a man.

 

[Xanikk999]

First off, sorry for the bump.


1) Where is the crappy bird with heavy bones and no talons? Or, where is the crappy dinosaur with hollow, weak bones and a toothless beak?

I dont quite understand you. There are plenty of examples of these that you speak. Maybe you arent up to date in paleontology.

2)If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys in abundance?

You clearly dont understand evolution. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, rather we evolved from the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees.

Not to mention why would an entire species change just because one population changes and evolves?

3)Why can I see some of the 'missing link' skeletons that are supposedly between apes and humans and think "hey, I know that guy. I saw him last week"? Seriously.

Whats your point?

4)This might not be what we're discussing, but I think it's funny when archaeologists find a stone axe and say "ah, this is 200 million years old". Um, sure, I can believe the ROCK is that old... I mean, does the rock change when it gets carved? Does its carbon clock stop?

There are no stone axes that are 200 million years old. And once again you dont understand how carbon dating works.

Heres a refresher.

 

[Perfection]

I dont quite understand you. There are plenty of examples of these that you speak. Maybe you arent up to date in paleontology.

Name one!

You clearly dont understand evolution. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, rather we evolved from the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees.

Humans (and chimps) evolved from monkeys which aren't chimps.

Not to mention why would an entire species change just because one population changes and evolves?

while your point stands monkeys are much more then a species

There are no stone axes that are 200 million years old. And once again you dont understand how carbon dating works.

Again? He talked before?

 

[Phlegmak]

Or better: if cars came after trains, why are trains still around?

Cars fulfill one niche, trains another. Yeah, their purposes overlap, but they aren't identical. When cars arrived on the scene, trains became an endangered species, but they still survived because for some travels, a train is just more efficient. In some ecological niches, a babboon just outcompetes a man.

Cars evolved! Good lord!

 

[ironduck]

They sure have!