P
PetraG
Guest
Giraffes are the only animals with valves in their carotid arteries.
- Status
P
PetraG
Guest
He has one objection that I have yet to hear anyone answer: How does mutation lead to a breeding population with a different number of chromosomes than the parent line? Evolution says it has to be possible, but no one has demonstrated a mechanims by which that has happened.
In comparing humans (23 chromosomes) and the great apes (24 chromosomes) it would appear structurally that two great ape chromosomes fused to produce human chromosome #2.
That is the kind of change that would usually render an individual sterile. The mechanism by which that happens in a way that leads to a breeding population has not been demonstrated. Again, I think the likelihood that such a mechanism exists is far higher than the likelihood that some other scientist is going to come up with evidence to totally refute the main ideas of evolution, but evolution does have its own “black box” steps remaining. (Not that this excuses snipers who haven’t come up with a better theory of their own.)
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Yeah… the food height always kept pace with the evolving neck length ,everything always works out in Darwinism .
C
Curious11
Guest
There’s no contradiction. The environment does NOT cause mutations. Those mutations that just happen, by random chance, to be beneficial for survival compared to others who lack that mutation, make those who have it survive and pass it down.
C
Curious11
Guest
It’s an example, for God’s sake.
C
Curious11
Guest
It’s an example!!! Jesus Christ
T
Techno2000
Guest
Pick a better one next time .
B
buffalo
Guest
Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates.
“Although their function has not yet been clearly elucidated, interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) have been cytogenetically associated with chromosomal reorganizations, fragile sites, and recombination hotspots. In this paper, we show that ITSs are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints of the inversions between human and chimpanzee and between human and rhesus macaque chromosomes. We proved that ITSs are not signs of repair in the breakpoints of the chromosome reorganizations analyzed. We found ITSs in the region (0.7–2.7 Mb) flanking one of the two breakpoints in all the inversions assessed. The presence of ITSs in those locations is not by chance. They are short (up to 7.83 repeats) and almost perfect (82.5–97.1% matches). The ITSs are conserved in the species compared, showing that they were present before the reorganizations occurred.
Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates - PubMed
Although their function has not yet been clearly elucidated, interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) have been cytogenetically associated with chromosomal reorganizations, fragile sites, and recombination hotspots. In this paper, we show that ITSs are not located at the exact evolutionary...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Last edited:
C
Curious11
Guest
Yeah. I’ll pick Creationism.
C
Curious11
Guest
Are those giraffes even adults?
T
Techno2000
Guest
If Darwin would have given you little more detail, maybe you wouldn’t be so flustered.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
The question, then, is how a chromosomal reorganization can occur without making the individual sterile? How do breeding populations change from one chromosomal organization and over to another that is not compatible with future interbreeding?
This mechanism cannot possibly happen in just one individual. There has to be a way for an entire breeding population to come over to the new organization. It has not been shown how incremental change cuts it as an explanation nor by what mechanism wholesale change could occur.
It could be by some manner, even something like a virus, that kills the vast majority of the breeding population but leaves the remainder both (a) changed beyond any semblance of compatibility with unchanged organisms and (b) viable within the group. As far as I am aware, however, the mechanism has not been uncovered, but only postulated as necessary.
This mechanism cannot possibly happen in just one individual. There has to be a way for an entire breeding population to come over to the new organization. It has not been shown how incremental change cuts it as an explanation nor by what mechanism wholesale change could occur.
It could be by some manner, even something like a virus, that kills the vast majority of the breeding population but leaves the remainder both (a) changed beyond any semblance of compatibility with unchanged organisms and (b) viable within the group. As far as I am aware, however, the mechanism has not been uncovered, but only postulated as necessary.
Last edited:
C
Curious11
Guest
I seriously recommend anyone who comes here with the good intention to help the OP understand to leave this thread immediately, you’ll be casting pearls before…
P
PetraG
Guest
If it makes you feel any better, it turns out that Isaac Newton didn’t understand everything there was to know about gravity, either. Ben Franklin is the culprit for assigning the electrons that get passed around with a negative charge instead of a positive; he didn’t know what was going on with static electricity when he first described it. Galileo discovered the rings of Saturn (which I expect also turned a few theological hairs at the time, since these rings could not be seen with the unaided eye) but died without knowing how very complex Saturn’s rings were and are.If Darwin would have given you little more detail, maybe you wouldn’t be so flustered.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Try not to think of evolution as having a starting point (being a scaly reptile), and an ending point (being a bird), with poor miserable half-and-halfs scrabbling for the worst of both for the millions of years in between. Evolution, except in the theological sense, does not know where it’s going. It doesn’t know it’s going anywhere. No living creature was ever ‘transitional’ except in retrospect; it was simply the best of its kind at the time. A minimal reduction in temperature meant that a minimal amount of insulation kept you hunting for a minimal period longer each day, so you were minimally more reproductively successful. That’s all. In a population of a ten thousand or so, it would take five hundred years before any difference was even noticeable. Quite probably the genes for pushing up placodes into little hollow bumps was around for a long while but suppressed by the genes for making scales. When, in a few lizards, a scale gene failed, then the tubule gene got expressed, and feathers were on their way (not that anybody could have guessed that at the time). Now don’t go jumping up and down shouting “proof.” We don’t do proof, as you know. We look at fossils and their place in stratigraphy, and we look at the genes for birds and reptiles, and we concoct an explanation that fits all the evidence we have. But we have a great deal more evidence than you might suppose, in spite of the paucity of the remains. There are masses of feathers trapped in amber, and we learn a lot from living animals which have failed to grow scales or feathers, or whose feathers have developed in peculiar way. The tiny differences in DNA which are responsible for quite big morphological changes lead us to think that one was derived from the other, not separately created. And thus the vast edifice of evolution had been constructed, not from ideological conviction, but by coherent explanations for tiny details.
E
edwest211
Guest
You’re catching on.
E
edwest211
Guest
Intelligent Design is the better explanation.
P
PetraG
Guest
I am beginning to suspect you can depend on this directive being followed…
Neither has the majority of human history, so that is no obstacle there…
Having said that, it is possible for a mutation to make a large and very obvious change right off the bat, even though the genetic alteration is rather slight.
There has also been conjecture that maintaining a height 2 m beyond all other competition is such “overkill” that it may not be the sole explanation for the unusual height and especially the long necks of giraffes. Some wonder if the giraffe’s neck, like the head and horns of bighorn sheep, did not reach their spectacular proportions because of their direct utility in mating competitions (with the eat-the-tree thing being a side benefit like the benefit of bighorn rams perhaps passing on good genes for forming strong bones efficiently)…this would give a big advantage to the the line of the one or very few individuals who had valves in the arteries of the neck, making longer and longer necks neurologically attainable. The sexual attractiveness would be the driving force, whereas the attainment of a very tough prehensile tongue would cement the advantage of being able to forage even in trees with some rather nasty protective spines.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160629-giraffes-did-not-evolve-long-necks-to-reach-tall-trees
By the way, consider that it is the scientists who are willing to let go of their previous notions of how it was giraffes got to have long necks. Find evidence that Darwin is wrong by providing a better explanation, Darwin opponents, and you’ll go somewhere. Just keep complaining that he’s pushed you out of your intellectual comfort zone, though, and you’re no longer in the realm of science.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
That was kind of a joke and a taunt.Techno2000:
If it makes you feel any better, it turns out that Isaac Newton didn’t understand everything there was to know about gravity, either. Ben Franklin is the culprit for assigning the electrons that get passed around with a negative charge instead of a positive; he didn’t know what was going on with static electricity when he first described it. Galileo discovered the rings of Saturn (which I expect also turned a few theological hairs at the time, since these rings could not be seen with the unaided eye) but died without knowing how very complex Saturn’s rings were and are.If Darwin would have given you little more detail, maybe you wouldn’t be so flustered.
P
PetraG
Guest
You’re not always being clear about when you’re taunting and when you’re posing a real question or objection, friend.That was kind of a joke and a taunt.
Do you really not understand what you’re asking about after all of this? I think you’re starting to hear the frustration come through about that matter. What do you understand and what do you not understand? Keep in mind that there are those who are honestly confused by all of this. Don’t make the conversation more difficult than it has to be.
- Status