The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[ironduck]

In the wild, there is many more offspring, so natural selection can work much more aggressively.

Um.. how does that make sense? Up until recently humans were just as much 'in the wild' for all intents and purposes, and natural selection possibly formed humans even more aggresively than most other animals have been formed at certain key points.

As for the mice I don't know if it would be easy, I was just looking for something that wasn't too unlike us with a much faster turnaround..

 

[Dr Tiny]

I had a think over the weekend and one factor not being taken into account with the mitochondria is "endosymbiotic gene transfer". Basically, over the course of evolution many of the original mitochondrial genes have been transfered to the nucleur genome of the host. The encoded proteins are then transported back into the mitochondria. If we were to wait long enough eventually all the genes of the mitochondria will be in the nucleus. There is an example of this happening with hydrogenosomes which have had their genome completely assimilated into their host. Interestingly, hydrogenosomes have a similar function to mitochondria and are thought to descend from the same symbiont as mitochondria. Anyway, this process will protect the mitochondrial genome protected from Muller's ratchet* by slowing or preventing the ratchet from turning ie slowing the build up of mutations over the course of evolutionary time.

Excellent review
Gene Transfer from Organelles to the Nucleus: How Much, What Happens, and Why?
William Martin* and Reinhold G. Herrmann
Plant Physiol. (1998) 118 pp9-17


*Muller's ratcher is the irreversable and deleterious process of mutations accumulating over time in the genomes of asexually reproducing species/organelles/genomes.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The nuclear DNA is more protected (you'll find fewer articles positing that aging-associated defects is due to damage to the nuclear DNA than articles positing that it's due to defect in the mtDNA), so evidence that nuclear DNA damage is age associated in the offspring is similar to evidence that mtDNA is damaged.

Sorry for not providing the link. I googled the text to provide it.

I'll look into this later - mostly quoting it to provide myself with a reminder.

Exactly! With Adam!

At what time would you place Adam? Noah There's no way in hell the present variation in Y chromosomes could be derived from a single male 4-6k years ago.

 

[carlosMM]

Some scientists have identified a serious problem with the larger Mega Fauna (mega fauna are animals weighing more than 100 pounds). From what we know about gravity and muscle strength, the bird with the 30 ft wingspan for example should not have been able to get off the ground.

hehe, what birds?

there's a bunch of flightless extinct birds,
and then there's the Andean Giant Condor, that died out when main wind directions changed and the additional lift for takeoff was lost.

Yet, it was not a flightless bird.

What 'it'?????

Another animal that could fly, the Pteradactyl and its cousins had wingspreads of up to nearly 60 feet. Although the wings folded, what did they do with them while on the ground?

THe style already tells the tale - someone who's so clueless about taxonomy is also clueless about the rest of the subject.

Simple answer: they folded the wings and walked quadrupedally, you dumbass (note: this is not directed at Urederra, but at the original author, who is a dumbass).

The very largest birds today who weigh just a fraction of what that bird weighed, and they get into the air with some difficulty.

So???

Other animals, particularly the very large dinosaurs should have had quite a bit of trouble moving those vast amounts of weight around.

erhm, dinosaurs didn't fly, except for the tiny ones, dumbass!

The larger elephants living today seem to be almost at the extreme of supportable body weight versus muscle strength,

Maybe to a dumbass like you, dumbass!

yet many of the dinosaurs weighed many times more.

Indeed!

Now let's all celebrate - the dumbass got a fact correct!

The Hornless rhino was almost eighteen feet high and 27 feet long. It was probably by far the biggest mammal ever. How did its legs support that kind of weight?

As all legs do - through bone, muscle and ligaments.....

How could an animal that big be strong enough to get up once it had laid down?

By having, dear dumbass, sufficient muscles




Urederra, thank you for bringing this gem up!

 

[The Last Conformist]

The larger elephants living today seem to be almost at the extreme of supportable body weight versus muscle strength,

They may seem to do so, but in actuallity they do not. Their legs are easily strong enough to support very significant weights in addition to the weight of the animal itself.

 

[carlosMM]

They may seem to do so, but in actuallity they do not. Their legs are easily strong enough to support very significant weights in addition to the weight of the animal itself.

hehe, I'll be off in 105 minutes to teach 'functional morphology 101 - locomotion'. This guy would need the lecture

 

[diablodelmar]

Hello! Its me again! I just have one question about something to Carlos:

I would like to hear from your own mouth (or posts) what the (first and second) laws of thermodynamics are and see if they are the same as the ones in my textbook. I found them to be of a rather amusing quality when considering evolution.

 

[carlosMM]

Hello! Its me again! I just have one question about something to Carlos:

I would like to hear from your own mouth (or posts) what the (first and second) laws of thermodynamics are and see if they are the same as the ones in my textbook. I found them to be of a rather amusing quality when considering evolution.

Firstly, seeing that so far you haven't answered a SINGLE question I really wonder why you think I'd waste any more time with you.

Secondly, I can guess what you are driving at with your 1st and 2nd laws - have you also considered the 0th? The questions you will bring up from your great mysterious DVD have been answered about, oh, 50 times already, in the predecessors of this thread. Look at post one for the links.

 

[Dr Tiny]

Hello! Its me again! I just have one question about something to Carlos:

I would like to hear from your own mouth (or posts) what the (first and second) laws of thermodynamics are and see if they are the same as the ones in my textbook. I found them to be of a rather amusing quality when considering evolution.

Only if you tell us what the difference between closed and open systems are.

 

[Che Guava]

Um.. how does that make sense? Up until recently humans were just as much 'in the wild' for all intents and purposes, and natural selection possibly formed humans even more aggresively than most other animals have been formed at certain key points.

THe amount of complexity in our systems has little to do with how 'aggressive' natural selection has been. The selection pressure is determined by the environment, and by how well the organisms in that environment can handle it. If anything, nature has been quite kind to us: our environment is relatively stable, our diet and habitat are flexible enough to live in a myriad of locations across the earth. The main competition we have is with each other, and we decide how cut-throat that might be.

As for the mice I don't know if it would be easy, I was just looking for something that wasn't too unlike us with a much faster turnaround..

Lab rats are about the closest thing we have to us in a 'cheap and fast' organism. What's more interesting (and more telling in some instances) is looking at our role spatially and temporaly in our ecosystem, and finding other organisms that occupy that same niche in different types of ecosystems, ones that work on a much smaller (faster?) timescale.

 

[carlosMM]

especially lab mice and rats would have to have seriously degradation by now - remember they come from as few as 20 ancestors less than 200 years ago!

 

[Che Guava]

especially lab mice and rats would have to have seriously degradation by now - remember they come from as few as 20 ancestors less than 200 years ago!

Heh heh, true. Did you know that white lab rats were origially known as 'norweigen blacks'?

But inbreeding depression is really only a problem if you have potentially deleterious alleles. Most genetics diseases have been bred out of the rats, so they have offspring with thier siblings and still get healthy babies.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Firstly, seeing that so far you haven't answered a SINGLE question I really wonder why you think I'd waste any more time with you.

QUOTED FOR GREAT TRUTHERY.

diablodelmar, my English teacher would refer to your condition as "verbal diarrhea". You are spewing questions and providing nothing of substance. Kindly stop it. Pick an area you want to talk about where you'll actually debate instead of running away and asking more questions.

 

[diablodelmar]

QUOTED FOR GREAT TRUTHERY.

diablodelmar, my English teacher would refer to your condition as "verbal diarrhea". You are spewing questions and providing nothing of substance. Kindly stop it. Pick an area you want to talk about where you'll actually debate instead of running away and asking more questions.

Actually the term is not "verbal diarrhoea" but "legible diarrhoea" because your reading it, not hearing it.

 

[diablodelmar]

Only if you tell us what the difference between closed and open systems are.

I am afraid I don't know the answer to that question.

EDIT: but now I do. Thanks for making the link Erik!

 

[diablodelmar]

Firstly, seeing that so far you haven't answered a SINGLE question I really wonder why you think I'd waste any more time with you.

Secondly, I can guess what you are driving at with your 1st and 2nd laws - have you also considered the 0th? The questions you will bring up from your great mysterious DVD have been answered about, oh, 50 times already, in the predecessors of this thread. Look at post one for the links.

CarlosMM, I have no idea what you are talking about, since I have tried to answer as many of your questions that I have noticed (I can't read entire threads: I just came to this one).

Also, what are you on? How do you think you know I got this question from my "secret DVD"??? Don't try and guess things that you really know little about. Stick with patenteotiolothingy.

Please explain to me how the evolutionary theory is somehow exempt from being affected by the laws of thermodynamics (which, judging by your pitiful answer, you know relativly little regarding, or else you are simply embarrased by the truth).

 

[Urederra]

Urederra, thank you for bringing this gem up!

Your welcome...

here is the website, it is full of funny pseudocientific stuff.
http://s8int.com/

 

[El_Machinae]

Think about your question this way. How do babies grow, and get bigger, and more complex, while they age (at least until their teens)?

The 'laws of thermodynamics' that you think are being violated by evolution, are also being violated by organism growth.

 

[El_Machinae]

especially lab mice and rats would have to have seriously degradation by now - remember they come from as few as 20 ancestors less than 200 years ago!

Unless they're breeding before the mtDNA degradation kicks in. I mean, of COURSE God designed it so that they'd breed before serious damage would be done ...

Why would rat mtDNA degrade faster than human? I mean, I've said that humans last 20 years with minimal (but additive) damage - so why would their 8 months even matter?

PS: for the more experienced - how many posts can you put in a row, without getting into trouble? I can't figure out how to merge posts.

 

[Che Guava]

what exactly is incongruent with thermodynamics and evolution?