Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- From: hersheyh <hersheyhv@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 2, 11:02 pm, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:50 am, "Bob T." <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:27 pm, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:16 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-07-03, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx <rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 3, 2:11 am, "Dan Luke" <t1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
yet.
Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
physiology design differs within that group.
As a starting point for discussion.
Can you think of an organ that you don't share with a dolphin?
Mark
I'm not that knowledgeable to know the differences but why do they all
look alike, and why are they all from the design mold?
Because they are all descended from a common ancestor.
Who is it, that one point decides ok, this is the mold for a dolphin,
and all dolphins will follow this mold?
There is no decision involved. All dolphins are descended from a
common ancestor.
- Bob T.
Why not two common ancestors or a bunch of equally valid dolphin
designs with differing physiology?
In fact, some species arise from hybridization of two species.
Particularly in plants. Allopolyploidization is the fancy term.
Why is there but one design mold, for every species, which defines the
species?
First you need to understand that "dolphin" is not a species, but a
group of related species. So asking that question wrt dolphins makes
no sense. Dolphins closest cousins, of course, are whales. And
dolphins and whales share a good chunk of what you consider a "mold".
If the process by which you get different designs, is modified DNA,
then probably we have already made lots of new animals I suspect, now
that we know what DNA is. I suppose we have been bashing up DNA like
crazy the way nature does to make some new animals of our own. When
can we see them?
Most evolutionary change involves fixation of alternate alleles at
selectively neutral sites.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- From: rick_sobie
- Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- References:
- Propping up the theory of Evolution
- From: rick_sobie
- Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- From: Dan Luke
- Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- From: rick_sobie
- Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- From: Mark VandeWettering
- Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- From: rick_sobie
- Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- From: Bob T.
- Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- From: rick_sobie
- Propping up the theory of Evolution
- Prev by Date: Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- Next by Date: Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- Next by thread: Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|