IRC-Galleria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPuKoEYCs2o Videon kommenteista.


atechworld
@types10000 "there is no mechanism to prevent the accumulation of change"

A dairy farmer told me his top producing cow suffered from problems in its joints. English bulldogs which are bred to accentuate certain features that humans find appealing or humorous suffer from all kinds of medical problems unlike dogs that are not bred toward the limits of smallness or largeness. Ever notice how fruit trees are more brittle and prone to disease? Man has pushed them to a limit. BARRIERS ARE REAL



TuucciZ
@atechworld This is because humans breed the animals and plants best suited to whatever extreme they are reaching towards, ignoring any proneness to disease, joint problems, and the thousands of other genetic problems this kind of breeding moves on. In the end, these problems are heavily amplified, because there is nothing to eliminate them from the gene pool. This creates the illusion of a barrier.



TuucciZ
@atechworld Natural selection does not have this same issue as it is not subject to the same, narrow-minded goals. For example, let's take the example of the dairy cow you presented. In nature the negative genes would have never reached the cow in question, as the cow's predecessors wouldn't have survived because of these faulty genes, therefore not leading up to a barrier of any kind. Man does not see these faulty genes before the problems created by them become strongly superficial.



atechworld
@types10000 "[Evolution has] tangible objective evidence to support it."

1 Mutations - yes

2 Natural selection - yes

3 All life descended from one common ancestor - no

We can't breed any animal to grow wings when it has no pre-existing genetic coding for wings. Canids can vary a lot but they remain canids. The same holds true for equids (horses) and the felidae family (cats). We see changes within the kinds but they don't go outside of their kinds. The barriers are REAL.



TuucciZ
@atechworld discovermagazine(dot)com/2006/may/origin-ear & Wikipedia: "Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles"
The human ear as we know it has not always been there, nor has the genetic code for it, but instead it was constructed in early mammals from nasal passages and jaw bones. Body parts can adapt completely new functions. Also, in the same way, why can't arms or whatever body parts evolve into wings?



atechworld
@types10000 "the word kinds implies a genetic barrier which does not exist"

DOES NOT EXIST? Why has no one ever successfully hybridized a cat to get something other than a cat? Or hybridized a wolf with a wolverine? The fact that animals can't hybridize with anything outside their own family must be a pain in the butt for you. What taxonomic family is the nylon bug in? The same family as the non-mutated bug?



TuucciZ
@atechworld Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the difference between two species in 100 points. Beyond that difference, two animals cannot breed. We have species A, wtih an average point value of 0. Of course, animals within the population can have varying values, say, from about -10 to +10, but any futher derivations are not beneficial and are therefore eliminated by natural selection. Now, the population gets cut in two populations that cannot share genes.



TuucciZ
In population A1, the animals with the lowest score survive, while in population A2, the contrary, because of different environments. As the members with the most extreme scores breed most effectively, their genes create offspring with score values even futher from the original average of species A. Skip ahead a couple million years, and check the population scores again. The averages of populations A1 and A2 are now -100 and 100 respectively. Aren't these two new species derived from "A"?