The punishment of Wisdom Teeth.

whicker · Post by **whicker** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:51 pm

Clements wrote:Panzer88:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Educate yourself. Now.

Personally, I'd go with the Picard-Worf hypothesis. Basically that we were planted here by an alien species, one that even they themselves couldn't explain how they arrived in the universe.

For our planet to join the universal federation and get the whole "congratulations on catching up to the rest of the universe" package, we must successfully demonstrate a hyperdrive engine capable of intergalactic travel.

No seriously, stop laughing!

alexz721 · Post by **alexz721** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:00 pm

I still doubt the appendix will disappear anytime soon, if at all.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:06 pm

Panzer88 wrote: I knew someone was going to say this, but by the basic rules of science someone must witness and make record and then test it repeatedly for it to be perceived as a working hypothesis.

In other words, geology and astronomy aren't real sciences because no one can live long enough to SEE mountains erode, much less the formation of a solar system?

Kthx.

Johan_H · Post by **Johan_H** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:08 pm

alexz721 wrote:I still doubt the appendix will disappear anytime soon, if at all.

*Agrees*
Fat people are likely to go extinct long before that happens, provided genetics really play a part in becoming fat, as some say.
@whicker. At least you're less crazy than creationists, I'd say. EVERYONE ELSE, PLEASE IGNORE THIS MESSAGE ;)

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:48 pm

whicker wrote:
Clements wrote:Panzer88:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Educate yourself. Now.
Personally, I'd go with the Picard-Worf hypothesis. Basically that we were planted here by an alien species, one that even they themselves couldn't explain how they arrived in the universe.

For our planet to join the universal federation and get the whole "congratulations on catching up to the rest of the universe" package, we must successfully demonstrate a hyperdrive engine capable of intergalactic travel.

No seriously, stop laughing!

No dude, I'll tell you wants going to prove our worth to the rest of the universe: GIANT. ROBOTS.

With SHOTGUNS if possible.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:35 am

Joe Camacho wrote:
whicker wrote:
Clements wrote:Panzer88:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Educate yourself. Now.
Personally, I'd go with the Picard-Worf hypothesis. Basically that we were planted here by an alien species, one that even they themselves couldn't explain how they arrived in the universe.

For our planet to join the universal federation and get the whole "congratulations on catching up to the rest of the universe" package, we must successfully demonstrate a hyperdrive engine capable of intergalactic travel.

No seriously, stop laughing!
No dude, I'll tell you wants going to prove our worth to the rest of the universe: GIANT. ROBOTS.

With SHOTGUNS if possible.

WTF sort of giant robot has a SHOTGUN? We need SWORDS! Bigass swords as tall as the robot!

Post by **Agozer** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:25 am

Don't forget lasers. Every robot needs lasers.

MisterJones · Post by **MisterJones** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:41 pm

You people need to watch more Patlabor.

Panzer88 · Post by **Panzer88** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:04 pm

On the topic of dissapearing organs let me say this. Sure the evolution wouldn't happen all in one generation, but it it the new gene would have to be dominant, if it wasn't then you really would need to kill off the other gene. Just like 6 fingers is the dominant gene, and yet very few people have 6 fingers.

as for the comment on dna mutation, the reason I said this was because this is the only way I know so far that new information enters the gene pool. If all the genes in the human gene pool exist, only new combinations can be created but not a new entity all-together.

as for what defines science, I didn't make the rules. You CAN observe erosion and you can observe stars, and occationally a star die-out etc. but you are right, even in these sciences there are some speculation. I think that's what a lot of people don't realize is that you can't (intelligently) base your opinions on speculation. It's not just about observation but testability, you cannot accept a theory that isn't testable

I am aware that some of my own statements may have been a little underthought but I still find little insight here besides Clements post, I'm still digging through that stuff.

if anyone else has some helpful information for me let me know.

alexz721 · Post by **alexz721** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:19 pm

Do you know what the fuck polygenic traits are? If so, you'd understand why I stopped reading your post.

Panzer88 · Post by **Panzer88** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:31 pm

I hate it just as much as anyone when someone ignorant goes on and on about something they don't know, so please try to hear and help me out. I have studied polygenic traits and I just now went and reviewed some material and I don't understand how this directly contradicts what I was saying. I DO know though that I don't have the most amazing grasp on the topic so I open to someone breaking it into laymen's terms.

I'm not just spouting my opinions for the sake of making noise. I actually do want to learn more.

alexz721 · Post by **alexz721** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:28 pm

And yet you say Clements is the only remotely insightful person in this thread, which is insulting to others who also had good points. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

You are right in saying mutations are the only way new information enters the gene pool (for localized gene pools, one could say that interbreeding between populations is another way new information enters the gene pool, but for the purposes of this argument, I'm talking about the human species as a whole). However, I'd argue that "entities" is a poor choice of words. Are you trying to say that traits change but there is no evidence of new species arising out of evolution? That's what I gather from your post. I would have to disagree with that claim. The most convincing evidence I can think of, elaborated much more in Clements' link, is the similarities of genomes between species. For example, humans share 95% of their genes with apes, and around 70-90% with mice. Also, there are certain genes in all species that are virtually the same. To me, that cannot be pure coincidence.

As far as organs appearing or disappearing, a single gene does not control the presence of an entire organ. There are many, many genes which which control the structure and function of the body, and there would have to be many mutations to cause such drastic change in the body. It's not as simple as dominant vs. recessive. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are far more polygenic traits than single-gene controlled traits.

Clements · Post by **Clements** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:20 pm

Panzer88 wrote:On the topic of dissapearing organs let me say this. Sure the evolution wouldn't happen all in one generation, but it it the new gene would have to be dominant, if it wasn't then you really would need to kill off the other gene. Just like 6 fingers is the dominant gene, and yet very few people have 6 fingers.

alexz721's point - You are assuming in the above quote that one gene governs a phenotypical feature. Most of the time, this is not the case, where phenotypic features are governed by 2 or more genes.

Also, you are wrong that a gene has to be dominant to spread throughout a population where there is selective pressure (Read: Sickle Cell Anemia, a recessive allele, and the frequency of the allele in areas of the World afflicted with Malaria).

You can also add new information through gene duplication. A gene can get duplicated, and one of those gene can then get mutated and you have a new gene. It could code for a new variant of an enzyme or receptor. You often find in Molecular Biology that there are many slight variants of receptors and not just a single receptor. It is also how the Hox genes evolved from early animals to humans. Also, we have a lot of pseudogenes that do not get transcribed, but a future mutation can activate them when there is selection pressure.

We can directly observe Evolution in simpler organisms. During my MSc, I have studied the Evolution of M. Tuberculosis and how mutations can be both deleterious and advantageous to the virulence of the pathogen, such as conferring drug resistance. Another good example is Nylon-eating bacteria. Nylon was first invented in 1935 and now bacteria have evolved to digest it. Viruses and Bacteria are good for observing Evolution since they replicate incredibly rapidly, and their error-checking machinery for DNA replication (such as exonuclease activity in eukaryotic cells) is much less advanced or non-existent.

To elaborate on the striking similarities between genomes of species - another good evidence is the fact that human chromosome 2 has telomeric sequences in the middle of it, and is homologous to two chimp chromosomes is pretty clear evidence that human chromosome 2 is the result of a telomeric fusion of two great ape chromosomes. To someone with a little bit of sense, this shows that the Great Apes and Humans have descended from a common ancestor. Also, look how the Vitamin C gene is broken is Humans and the primates, and working in lower animals - showing that we inherited the same broken gene from our primate ancestors. The amount of genetic evidence is phenomenal.

Creation stories in various Religions go against all the evidence we see. Evolution on the other hand fits all the evidence. To say Evolution is as preposterous as religion is an argument from personal incredulity. Evolution happens.