|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/7/2008 1:30:16 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 1007
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Seems fair enough at first, but which "creation theories" do we teach then? There is ONE universally accepted evolutionary theory on Earth. And which one is that? Gradualism, punctuated equilibrium or a mixture of both? Polyphyletic descent or monphyletic? And what if they are all actually wrong? Your idea doesn't work for many reasons.
quote:
The first amendment is interpreted to imply separation of church and state. I find that interpretation to be accurate. "Congress shall make no laws regarding religion", to paraphrase it. You miss a fundamental fact here - Darwinism is not non-religious, it is anti-religious. Darwinism is based on the philosophies of materialism and scientism. It is by no means neutral, as they keep trying to tells us, and this is more than obvious when you read what the high priests of Darwinism say. Darwin himself deliberately and thus hypocritically hid his materialism from public view in order to have his theory more easily accepted.
quote:
But even if you wish to go against this and include religious teachings in schools, there is still the serious and difficult question; which religion do you give preference to? It isn't about teaching religion at all, it's about teaching weaknesses as well as strengths and other viable theories. You're making the standard, Darwinist propaganda induced, error of conflating ID with religion. It is not. It can have metaphysical implications just like Big Bang physics, but so? Face the facts, go where the evidence points.
Darwinism is far closer to religion - the religion of secular humanism with scientism and man as it's gods - than ID. Where is your comment on getting the metaphysical constructs of Darwinism out of the schools? Hmm?
quote:
Should we create a nonspecific amalgamation of ALL of the various religious notions. Exactly what is happening in Canada.
quote:
And that, above all, is why separation of church and state is considered a good thing. It isn't because the laws should ignore Christian ideals, it's because "Christian ideals" are impossible to effectively codify. You're kidding right? What nonsense! Christian ideals are already codified! The whole declaration of independence, the constitution and the major part of Western Law is based on Judeo/Christian values. The effort to remove those values through the enforced teaching of materialism and it's origins myth Darwinism, has been a long time process deliberately ensconced on Western culture by founding secular humanists. So they are now hoping to see the fruit while cutting out the roots. It does not work as anyone can see. Materialism has already failed. Western society has been in decline for decades and the West is soon to go under - along with all other nations and empires in history that removed the moral foundations of Natural moral Law. The end result of Darwinism is inescapable hihilism as we well observe today.
quote:
Parents don't own their kids. They are stewards to them. Teaching one particular creation story but not another boarders on child abuse. Now let us all stare in wonder at such a ludicrous statement! I certainly hope you are not going to say that the state owns our children!! They don't. Such Dawkinsish ill-reasoned tripe about child abuse is laughable!
Children must be taught critical thinking - but how can this be when only certain kinds of thought are allowed in schools?! You're obviously very ignorant of the way things really happen in schools these days. Just reading a bible at ones desk is enough to get a teacher in very hot water. Yet reading the Koran or books on witchcraft and satanism is passed by like nothing! Why? How did this happen? You are far off from reality and fact in this and have thus chosen your pseudonym correctly.
quote:
Children all deserve a clean slate to make their own choices about the world. And that fits with your previous statement how? If children are incapable of dealing with a creation theory, they must be doubly incapable of dealing with no theory. Teach the child nothing and they will believe anything. It is easy to demonstrate the stupidity and falsehoods of some of the major religions like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. The problem doesn't lie there, it lies in political correctness drawn to the point of utter stupidity in "tolerance" of just about anything. Indeed, tolerance is now America's number one sin. Indeed, because of Darwinism criminals are no longer "bad", they are just "sick" or genetically "defective". You are unconscious as to the extent Darwinism has bee destroying democracy and decency. Read John West's "Darwin Day in America" to get an idea.
This is what we see today. Atheism and it's necessary illegitimate child materialism, doesn't lead one to only disbelief in any god but rather a belief in anything at all. No intelligence required - anywhere. All values then become subjective so anything goes. Nihilism is the only possible outcome. I hope you can see that.
_____________________________
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ...To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking." -W. R. Thompson, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/15/2008 3:49:57 PM
|
|
|
eaglesfeather
Posts: 99
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
Teaching a child to logically justify the words of a book (or theory) by only the means of the book (or theory) defies all logic in finding truth. Better off telling the child that the child himself is god.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?"teachers - 12/16/2008 11:47:38 AM
|
|
|
bushwendy
Posts: 9
Joined: 12/15/2008
Status: offline
|
critical thinking in schools?
I have not read all the posts but the original post.. funny, just had a conversation this am with my daughter who is teaching elementary. SHE brought up a conversation that the principal and her had reagarding the LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING IN STUDENTS TODAY...
it is true and has been for sometime..perhaps not a bann in school but the electronic age has disspensed with the need for kids to think critically, everything is done for them, computers, calculators , tv etc...
true...critical thinking is gone...thank heavans there are still people like on this board who question (and then there are those on this board who just don't get it)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?"teachers - 12/16/2008 11:57:31 AM
|
|
|
bushwendy
Posts: 9
Joined: 12/15/2008
Status: offline
|
reading more comments on this thread...problem is...explaining the lack of critical thinking to people with no critical thinking or have no clue what critical thinking IS... is a futile thing..they don't get. scary thing is...LOTS of people are in that catagory
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/16/2008 12:24:41 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 2836
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Please present some of that evidence so we can examine it. I say whatever you present will fail to be real evidence for evolution.
I'm new here, so I'll bite. What do you make of Tiktaalik?
Tiktaalik has features of both fish and tetrapods, as well as some features that are intermediate between the two. The fossils also come from precisely the time period needed to be a transition between the fish and the tetrapods.
Now, one fossil is hardly proof of evolution, but you asked for evidence. Is this not positive evidence of evolution? Tiktaalik might have been found in strata a billion years too old, or it might have been found in someone's backyard swimming pool. But instead, it was discovered in rock of the correct geologic age and with the correct anatomical features to be a transitional species between two different kinds of animals. Not only that, but Tiktaalik serves as a confirmation of a prediction made by evolutionary theory, that such a transitional animal must have existed. As Professor Clack noted, "It's one of those things you can point to and say, 'I told you this would exist,' and there it is."
I'll bite back.  This has been debunked.
Tell me ... how does evolution explain the jewel beetle (genus Melanophila) or the bombardier beetle or even the giraffe? Warning ... this will demand some critical thinking!
< Message edited by Psalms274 -- 12/16/2008 12:42:15 PM >
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/16/2008 12:40:50 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 2836
Status: offline
|
AS to the critical thinking comment. Critical thinking is not taught in the schools. I went back to Nursing School where the ability to think critically is vital. Most of the 4.0 students (it is very competitive and you need to take quite a few prerequisites in the advanced sciences before you are even considered) had a very difficult time because they didn't know how to think critically. They were great at rote memorization, but asking them to think through a process, you lose them. Many of them flunked out because critical thinking is a foreign process to them.
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/18/2008 7:40:35 AM
|
|
|
alex123
Posts: 58
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'll bite back. This has been debunked.
Your link refers to Ventastega, not Tiktaalik! (And even then it is wrong, confusing as it does the idea of 'evolutionary' intermediate with 'historical' intermediate!)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/19/2008 11:17:01 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 51
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:alex123quote:
Your link refers to Ventastega, not Tiktaalik!
Tiktaalik has been thoroughly debunked.
Face it. The best evolutionists' have to offer are so-so stories backed up by little more than unrestrained imagination. TOE is no less religious and has less empirical support than the book of Genesis.
BTW, Although I personally don't celebrate Christmas: Merry Christmas and happy New Year to all.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/20/2008 7:20:36 PM
|
|
|
alex123
Posts: 58
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Tiktaalik has been thoroughly debunked.
I am curious to know why you think this travesty is 'thorough'? I suggest you read http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2007/03/dr-david-menton-is-liar.html for a start. I'll quote one part to give you a flavour of it (emphases are mine) :-
quote:
"In the article, Menton's only claims about the anatomy of Tiktaalik relate to the pelvic fins and girdles (i.e. the hips and legs) of Tiktaalik. There is no disucssion of the skull or shoulder girdle, and only tacit reference to the fin skeleton. Menton explains in relation to fishes and tetrapods that:
[t]he hind limbs [of tetrapods] in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins.
Menton is a liar. He cannot possibly know anything about the pelvic fins of Tiktaalik. The two papers describing Tiktaalik offer absolutely no descriptions of the pelvic fin skeletons or girdle. I've seen the material first-hand and there are no such details of the pelvic fin.
I took the time to go one step further. I emailed Ted Daeschler (of Colbert Report fame) who is one of the authors of the papers to drive this point home. Here's his reply which I got this morning [emphasis added]:
Regarding Tiktaalik pelvic fins . . . no pelvic fin material has been reported. Less for him to misrepresent!
I know this is like taking a whizz in the ocean, but chalk up another lie for AiG.
Thorough?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/21/2008 1:12:30 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 1007
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
Regarding tik
The whole problem with Tik and all the other supposed transitionals is that they are always supposed.
1) One cannot call anything a transitional except by assuming the Darwinian explanation to be true at the start - which is begging the question
2) An unbiased observer looking at any fossil, without any preconceived notions - either Darwinist or other - could not conclude with any degree of certainty whatsoever that it is a transitional. Indeed, without the idea of Darwins transitionals one would only see a different species that happens to look like some others.
3) An unbiased observer without Darwinist preconceptions could just as easily, and with just as much viability, look at any fossil and say, we discovered a previously unknown species. Period.
4) An IDist or more specially a creationist looking at Tik would see 'same designer' as the obvious conclusion
The only way to make the leap from previously unknown to transitional is by assuming Darwinism is true in the first place.
Is it possible to actually prove that Tik is a transitional between sea and land? No it isn't.
So as usual, we see the just-so stories abounding based on morphological similarity. Indeed, do we have 1000's if not 10s of 1000s of examples of extant organisms with high morphological similarity? Yes. Do we then suppose the ones transitionals to the others? No.
After looking at Brazeau's response to the AiG article (ref by alex123) I can see why he's mad. But it's pretty obvious that he's a young fiery hot head (judging by the title and his overly enthusiastic belief in the certainty of those beliefs).
Calling Menton a liar is nothing but a cheap ad hom from an immature boy who thinks he knows it all. Menton could have made a mistake, misread the data or been commenting on what Ahlberg and Clack said elsewhere. At any rate calling him a liar is a stupid thing to do.
I wouldn't trust a Darwinist commenting on a creationist under any circumstances.
But neither do I fully trust what any given creationist has to say on a given point - the truth is usually something else. People say stuff, people make mistakes.
Experience (and a lot of painful trips to TO, PT or PZ, etc.. sites) teaches me that the foul, nasty, uncouth, threatening nonsense ad homs are mostly from the Darwinists.
And why not? Darwinism is based on philosophical materialism and thus concludes that we are mere animals - no soul, no life after, no objective moral values, no ultimate purpose and survival is what its all about. Rape is an evolutionary adaptation (so must be incest, pedophilia, bestiality and every other perversion out there) so who cares if one lies? Darwinists, like atheists live on borrowed morals - generally Judeo/Xian ones - since they have no foundation for their own.
Imo, it's only a question of time before the world re-witnesses what happens when someone takes the logical conclusions of atheist versions of Darwinism to task and starts putting artificial selection (or whatever other name they see fit to call it) back into practice. (Hitler, Stalin, Mao... - approx 120 million killings)
-----
Back to the point. The fact that genetics is now telling us that many previously believed relations between species (based on morphology alone) were wrong ought to sound an alarm, Of course no alarm will sound for most Darwinists since the hypothesis cannot be falsified and "evolution is as proven as gravity"!
No matter what we find there is always a Darwinian explanation for it. How can you falsify a theory that can accommodate anything at all?
At any rate, after reading Ahlberg's own comments (talkrational) on the subject and seeing him admit that a lot of hype was produced by media, I think it's safe to say that while Tik is going to remain a transitional for Darwinists, it is not going to be demonstrated as such, ever. There simply isn't enough data and speculations based on morphology and time slots are not enough to qualify as proof or "not debatable" evidence of any kind.
_____________________________
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ...To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking." -W. R. Thompson, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/25/2008 3:44:17 PM
|
|
|
101
Posts: 27
Joined: 1/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Scripture does not say how or in what way God caused all life to arise on earth, it just states that; "God said;" and it was done. Also there are statements made in Genesis that may support evolution, such as the serpent going on his belly and Adam and Eve's fall. Also scripture only talks about what is taking place inside the garden of Eden, it does not talk about what is happening out side of it. Now as for 'evolution', we humans manipulate life on this planet on a constant bases through cross species breeding, testing, and so on and so forth. Most of our pet dogs and cats came from cross breading and so are asses. The point is; as a race, if we can do this, then what is to stop someone far more advanced then us in doing the same thing? And if we can accept advanced civilizations can terra ferm planets to their own design, how can we not go further and believe that there could be far more advanced beings that can do this with only their will to do it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/26/2008 5:17:27 AM
|
|
|
USincognito
Posts: 47
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
There is zero possibility for there to be a mammal with feathers or a bird with three middle ear bones like those found in mammals. We know this because of fossil intermediates which clearly show a different origin for each feature.
I'm late in this thread and haven't read all but based on what seems to be said here I would answer - Can you say platypus?
Chromosomal sex determination in the platypus has been discovered to be a combination of mammal and bird systems. The resemblance to birds is now more than just superficial. Is the "nested hierarchy" thing faulty at the roots? Hmmm....
Do you have a citation for this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/26/2008 7:06:28 AM
|
|
|
USincognito
Posts: 47
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Easy, just make up a nice scientific-sounding story.
No need to be a scientist. Any layman can do it.
{snip}
The bolding part is incorrect. What you meant to type was "straw man".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/26/2008 7:53:12 AM
|
|
|
scutus
Posts: 71
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
After looking at Brazeau's response to the AiG article (ref by alex123) I can see why he's mad. But it's pretty obvious that he's a young fiery hot head (judging by the title and his overly enthusiastic belief in the certainty of those beliefs).
Calling Menton a liar is nothing but a cheap ad hom from an immature boy who thinks he knows it all. Menton could have made a mistake, misread the data or been commenting on what Ahlberg and Clack said elsewhere. At any rate calling him a liar is a stupid thing to do.
If you think calling Menton a liar is an ad hominem attack, then how hypocritical are you in calling Martin Brazeau an 'immature boy who thinks he knows it all'? 
_____________________________
Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur.
—Cicero, De Finibus, 5.5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/27/2008 3:20:14 AM
|
|
|
USincognito
Posts: 47
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
I'm late in this thread and haven't read all but based on what seems to be said here I would answer - Can you say platypus?
Chromosomal sex determination in the platypus has been discovered to be a combination of mammal and bird systems. The resemblance to birds is now more than just superficial. Is the "nested hierarchy" thing faulty at the roots? Hmmm....
I did some work on my own and found some lay articles as well as at least an abstract of a 2004 hournal article. It looks like it isn't a combination of bird and mammal at all, but deeply ancestral sex chromosome layout that has come down in birds and monotremes, but evolved into XX/XY in marsupials and placental mammals.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041025/platypus.html
quote:
Humans and most mammals have just one set of sex chromosomes for meiosis. Females possess a set of X chromosomes, and males possess one X and one Y chromosome. The overall system is described as XX/XY, with the resulting sex of the mating determined by a gene on the male Y chromosome.
In birds, the male and female chromosomal roles somewhat are reversed, as female birds carry two different chromosomes, called Z and W. The overall bird system is called ZZ/ZW.
The platypus, in contrast, has an unprecedented ten sex chromosomes. The set for females consists of X1X1X2X2X3X3X4X4X5X5, with the numbers indicating slight variations. The male platypus set is X1Y1X2Y2X3Y3X4Y4X5Y5.
Notably, the researchers discovered that X5 resembles the bird Z chromosome in terms of appearance and the signaling of associated genes.
"The platypus sex chromosome system is the first example that shows links to both the bird ZZ/ZW and the mammalian XX/XY system," Grützner told Discovery News.
The platypus, along with two species of echidna, or spiny anteater, emerged 210 million years ago and today represent some of the world's first mammals.
They embody a unified mixture of mammal, reptile, and bird physiology, with their sex chromosomes hearkening back to very early days of life when perhaps all sex chromosomes and sex determining genes evolved from a common ancestor.
(bold mine)
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080507/full/453138a.html
quote:
The sex of the platypus is determined by a set of ten chromosomes, an oddity that sets it apart from all other mammals and from birds. These chromosomes link during meiosis to form a chain that ensures every sperm gets a set of all Xs or all Ys. Despite the similar designations, none of the platypus X chromosomes resembles the human, dog or mouse X. “The sex chromosomes are absolutely, completely different from all other mammals. We had not expected that,” says Jennifer Graves of the Australian National University in Canberra, who studies sex differentiation and is an author on the paper. Instead, the platypus Xs better match the avian Z sex chromosome. Another chromosome matches the mouse X, Graves and her colleagues report in Genome Research (F. Veyrunes et al. Genome Res. doi:10.1101/gr.7101908; 2008). This is evidence that placental mammalian sex chromosomes and the sex-determining gene Sry — found on the Y chromosome — evolved after the monotremes diverged from mammals, much later than previously thought. “Our sex chromosomes are a plain old ordinary autosome in the platypus,” Graves says.
< Message edited by USincognito -- 12/27/2008 3:34:13 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/29/2008 12:16:17 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 1007
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: USincognito
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
I'm late in this thread and haven't read all but based on what seems to be said here I would answer - Can you say platypus?
Chromosomal sex determination in the platypus has been discovered to be a combination of mammal and bird systems. The resemblance to birds is now more than just superficial. Is the "nested hierarchy" thing faulty at the roots? Hmmm....
I did some work on my own and found some lay articles as well as at least an abstract of a 2004 hournal article. It looks like it isn't a combination of bird and mammal at all, but deeply ancestral sex chromosome layout that has come down in birds and monotremes, but evolved into XX/XY in marsupials and placental mammals.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041025/platypus.html
quote:
Humans and most mammals have just one set of sex chromosomes for meiosis. Females possess a set of X chromosomes, and males possess one X and one Y chromosome. The overall system is described as XX/XY, with the resulting sex of the mating determined by a gene on the male Y chromosome.
In birds, the male and female chromosomal roles somewhat are reversed, as female birds carry two different chromosomes, called Z and W. The overall bird system is called ZZ/ZW.
The platypus, in contrast, has an unprecedented ten sex chromosomes. The set for females consists of X1X1X2X2X3X3X4X4X5X5, with the numbers indicating slight variations. The male platypus set is X1Y1X2Y2X3Y3X4Y4X5Y5.
Notably, the researchers discovered that X5 resembles the bird Z chromosome in terms of appearance and the signaling of associated genes.
"The platypus sex chromosome system is the first example that shows links to both the bird ZZ/ZW and the mammalian XX/XY system," Grützner told Discovery News.
The platypus, along with two species of echidna, or spiny anteater, emerged 210 million years ago and today represent some of the world's first mammals.
They embody a unified mixture of mammal, reptile, and bird physiology, with their sex chromosomes hearkening back to very early days of life when perhaps all sex chromosomes and sex determining genes evolved from a common ancestor.
(bold mine)
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080507/full/453138a.html
quote:
The sex of the platypus is determined by a set of ten chromosomes, an oddity that sets it apart from all other mammals and from birds. These chromosomes link during meiosis to form a chain that ensures every sperm gets a set of all Xs or all Ys. Despite the similar designations, none of the platypus X chromosomes resembles the human, dog or mouse X. “The sex chromosomes are absolutely, completely different from all other mammals. We had not expected that,” says Jennifer Graves of the Australian National University in Canberra, who studies sex differentiation and is an author on the paper. Instead, the platypus Xs better match the avian Z sex chromosome. Another chromosome matches the mouse X, Graves and her colleagues report in Genome Research (F. Veyrunes et al. Genome Res. doi:10.1101/gr.7101908; 2008). This is evidence that placental mammalian sex chromosomes and the sex-determining gene Sry — found on the Y chromosome — evolved after the monotremes diverged from mammals, much later than previously thought. “Our sex chromosomes are a plain old ordinary autosome in the platypus,” Graves says.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6568
_____________________________
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ...To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking." -W. R. Thompson, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 12/29/2008 12:17:58 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 1007
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: USincognito
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Easy, just make up a nice scientific-sounding story.
No need to be a scientist. Any layman can do it.
{snip}
The bolding part is incorrect. What you meant to type was "straw man".
Well that would make it even worse for the Darwinist story tellers.
_____________________________
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ...To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking." -W. R. Thompson, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/1/2009 7:15:18 AM
|
|
|
USincognito
Posts: 47
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6568
This reminds me of the Zebrafish discussion that was held here a couple of years ago. The presence of DMRT1 in birds and platypuses isn't surprising, it's found in all vertebrates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMRT1
quote:
This gene is found in a cluster with two other members of the gene family, having in common a zinc finger-like DNA-binding motif (DM domain). The DM domain is an ancient, conserved component of the vertebrate sex-determining pathway that is also a key regulator of male development in flies and nematodes.
Ah, but what about the fact that it's used, in sex determination in birds and the platypus as you claimed above? Well, the very article you linked to says that's not necessarily the case.
quote:
The platypus X1 chromosome has 11 genes that are found on all mammalian X chromosomes. The X5 carries a gene called DMRT1, which is also found on the Z chromosome in birds.
But although many people believe that DMRT1 will turn out to be the key sex-determining gene in birds, Grützner cautions that there is no evidence that it plays a similar role in the platypus.
bold mine.
I did some more digging and found the original article from 2004.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7019/full/nature03021.html
quote:
Our observation that the two ends of the chain share homology to the mammal XY and the bird ZW systems provides the first link between these sex chromosome systems and challenges the accepted view that mammal and bird sex chromosomes evolved independently.
In the absence of SRY, it is unclear how monotreme sex is determined. The degenerate Y5 is unlikely to bear a male-dominant gene because it is small and heterochromatic, and has been lost in the related echidna. E2 at the other end is also unlikely because of its complete homology and meiotic pairing with Xp. One or more male-determining genes could be present on any of the other male-specific (Y) chromosomes. The DMRT1 gene on chromosome X5, being present in two doses in females and one in males (that is, the opposite situation from birds) is unlikely to play a similar role. However, the unprecedented localization of DMRT1 on the sex chromosomes in a mammal raises the possibility that a DMRT1-based sex-determining system was ancestral to all mammals. SRY could either have been lost in monotremes, or have evolved on the proto-Y chromosome of therian mammals after their divergence from monotremes 210 million years ago.
That is ancestral reptilian sex selection mechanisms might be preserved in birds and platypuses, but lost in all other mammals or it might be something else entirely.
This is hardly the same case as if platypuses grew feathers or gizzards.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/6/2009 9:07:15 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: USincognito
That is ancestral reptilian sex selection mechanisms might be preserved in birds and platypuses, but lost in all other mammals or it might be something else entirely.
This is hardly the same case as if platypuses grew feathers or gizzards.
If a platypus grew feathers or gizzards, you can claim that such characteristics evolved and then use that as evidence that evolution can produce such characteristics. I am not the one claiming evolution can produce such characteristics, you are, so it is not for me to show that it can, that's your job.
You're basically trying to argue for evolution by requiring me to prove what you're trying to prove. Only evolution can get away with such terrible logic in public schools.
I'm sorry for being harsh, but this isn't some public school where the government holds your hand and protects evolution by censoring all criticisms. This is a private forum, if you want your views to fly around here, you're going to have to earn their merit by substantiating.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 1/6/2009 9:17:56 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/7/2009 9:33:01 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Hey there. I just wanted to say that I used to come to this forum a lot several years ago. I remember your name from back then and I remember reading some of your posts. Just wanna let you know that I can see a huge improvement on what you write today compared to then. It's a lot more coherent and clear now. Congrads on that - it's good to know we actually get better with practice and experience. Blessings. 
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/8/2009 3:31:33 AM
|
|
|
USincognito
Posts: 47
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
If a platypus grew feathers or gizzards, you can claim that such characteristics evolved and then use that as evidence that evolution can produce such characteristics.
I really find it hard to believe that after two years (that I've been posting here off and on) of people explaining how nested hierarchies work that you still don't get it. It has been explained over and over to you that a chimera or modular/patchwork animal cannot be fit into the nested hierarchy nor would a species evolving a novel feature found in an unrelated taxon fit into evolutionary theory. I even gave you a list two years ago - shrimp with backbones, iguanas with mammary glands, trout with fur, crows with arms and wings, sponges with vertebrate brains, insects with placentas, griffons, pegasi, etc. etc.
There are a million possible falsifications of the nested hierarchy, including a platypus with feathers and a gizzard, and you repeating "they could just claim they evolved" or "they could just reclassify them" doesn't change that fact, nor the fact that we have yet to find anything that violates the nested hierarchy of common descent.
You have also been asked over and over to show how an iguana with mammary glands or a crow with arms and wings could be fit into a nested hierarchy. I just read the Nested Hierarchy thread the other night (I haven't read or posted here since early 2007 IIRC) and you just made ad hoc claims instead of presenting a case for how a chimera or swapped module animal might evolve or fit into the nested hierarchy. It's not enough to say that scientists "will claim whatever", you have to show how they might justify that claim. After all this time I don't see you doing that.
quote:
I am not the one claiming evolution can produce such characteristics, you are, so it is not for me to show that it can, that's your job.
You're basically trying to argue for evolution by requiring me to prove what you're trying to prove. Only evolution can get away with such terrible logic in public schools.
I'm sorry for being harsh, but this isn't some public school where the government holds your hand and protects evolution by censoring all criticisms. This is a private forum, if you want your views to fly around here, you're going to have to earn their merit by substantiating.
Thanks for the advice, but you could have used the time you spent composing this lecture to instead make your case that chimeras or swapped module animals could fit into a nested hierarchy or evolutionary theory.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
