Primitive snakes

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
Creating an extra gene and changing from male to female is a genetic change.

Here, i found a site on that:
http://www.crystalinks.com/biology2.html

But there are lots of cases involving populations of frogs, fish and certain anphibians.

Absolute garbage once again. Estrogen-like toxins are responsible in your "source." As I have previously explained, this is not a genetic change but merely a response to varying hormones.

Ryan

Edit: if you want to be taken seriously here, citations of peer-reviewed journals are acceptable, not private websites.

[JG20]

Originally posted by RMBolton
Again, sorry, but no. This is not a change of genetics.
The foetuses of all vertebrates develop with elementary forms of female and male genitalia, and the potential to develop one or the other. In most vertebrate species, the genetic sex of the organism dictates whether the foetus develops male or female genitalia, while the other gradually diminishes and disappears.

Ryan

Yes, this is the reason why men have nipples. Jimmy all I found in your site was that the fish are changing in response to pollutants. They're reacting to unnatural levels of "hormones." The same can be said about women bodybuilders who take testosterone supplements and develop male characteristics. There is no change in their genetic makeup and will not affect their children, unless the hormone supplements are causing mutations in their gonads.

Joe

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
And Don't forget that an asexual creature evolves as well. How do you explain that?

It is explained quite clearly in the scientific literature that one of the main ways these asexual organisms evolve is due to random mutations. These apomictic asexual organisms (parthenogenetic, gynogenetic, etc.) evolve much, much slower because there is no genetic mixis.
Asexual bacteria evolve through conjugation. Again, genetic variation is responsible and mutation is the cause of genetic variation.

Ryan

[Double J]

Jimmy..... you you are continuously jumping to erroneous conclusion after erroneous conclusion, and then posting them without thinking hard, or doing further reading.

As I have said about 7, 8, or 9 times...... follow these steps:

1) Take a break from posting in this thread for a few weeks.

2) Go to the nearest library, and check out a biology text, a genetics text, AND perhaps even a primate evolution text or two or three. Primate evolution texts often cover evolutionary concepts rather well. And when I say texts, I mean texts, not some half-baked pseudoscience paperback.

3) Read them!

4) Then come back and begin a discussion.

I suppose this thread has been rather informative to other members, but I fear that some erroneous ideas and selective quotes may become perpetuated and even accepted by other forum members if RMBolton, Cam, myself, and others have expended our energy and would rather not post on the subject further.

Jimmy, I am in no way insinuating any lack of intelligence, rather, a lack of accurate interpretation of information is the culprit here.

I am growing weary of reading and posting in this thread. Though I do enjoy discussing evolution immensely, this continuous refuting of selective quotations and erroneous ideas is becoming rather taxing.

Double J

[JimmyDavid]

Originally posted by JG20
The same can be said about women bodybuilders who take testosterone supplements and develop male characteristics.

Joe

that is another subject. Those women still have their female reproductive system working like they were born with.
I'm talking about creatures that went through a change that altered their own individual identity. RMBolton said it's not considered genetic change, i say call it what you want, it's a dramatic individual change at all levels.
To create a change in somatic cells you only need a vehicle (some microorganisms can do that) to insert a different gene in the nucleous. As that cell reproduces, and so on, they will spead that change.
The theory that those changes could have an impact on germlike cells (even if by a tiny percentage) would explain the molding of species through generations and it would not be random but following a pattern of consistant alteration (that's what is lacking in the mutation theory).

Anyway, i guess it's time to stop this thread. We could be here debating forever, but the truth is scientists have changed opinion before and they will keep on doing that through the years as they get more information.
Let them worry about that!

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Double J
I suppose this thread has been rather informative to other members, but I fear that some erroneous ideas and selective quotes may become perpetuated and even accepted by other forum members if RMBolton, Cam, myself, and others have expended our energy and would rather not post on the subject further.

I agree. I grew weary of this thread a long time ago, but I have a hard time allowing such erroneous information to be posted and not be contested. There's already enough crap on the internet, and I don't enjoy having to refute everything JimmyDavid says, but I won't allow misinformation to spread to other members. It doesn't seem right.

Ryan

[CamHanna]

Posted by JimmyDavid
The theory that those changes could have an impact on germlike cells (even if by a tiny percentage) would explain the molding of species through generations and it would not be random but following a pattern of consistent alteration (that's what is lacking in the mutation theory).

The 'molding' pattern of 'consistent alteration' is explained by mutation/heterozygosity. I've been using single genes to explain the concept but in reality each individual is heterozygous for thousands of different genes (because thousands of mutations occured in thousands of previous generations). This is the variation that Double J explained in his giraffe model. Assuming the selective pressures (environment, predation, prey and so on) remain reletively constant the same combinations of genes will be selected for generation after generation and eventually the population will evolve in some benificial way.

[Cake]

Originally posted by Double J
I am growing weary of reading and posting in this thread. Though I do enjoy discussing evolution immensely, this continuous refuting of selective quotations and erroneous ideas is becoming rather taxing.
[/B]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[lostwithin]

RMBolton, and the others, I am very impressed with your dedication to this post and correcting all of JimmiyDavid nonsense. I grew very tired of it and it seems that no matter what is said he will come up with some bit of information that he doesn't quite understand and try to use it to suite his point.

As for JimmyDavid, Regardless of your beliefs You are wrong, an individual cannot evolve, It has been proven. a population does how this occurs is beyond your ability to understand. Your own arguments are incorrect and you contradicts your self constantly. Every one of your bits of misinformation has been correct and explained by someone more knowledgeable so why not just give everyone a break. Questions and comments from people willing to learn are great your contribution to this conversation is pointless.

Devon

[JimmyDavid]

For ryan:

Heck, i promissed this thread would have an end but i wanted to submit one final thought.
Still on the mutation causing evolution. How do you explain that a mutation goes around the "contained factor"? Most species are territorrial and live all their lives around a certain area. Also many species relate only with members of their hurd or group (even sexually). I could see mutation being responsible for creating a locale, but not an entire species.

[CDN-Cresties]

Is this room 204 Biology???

[JG20]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
that is another subject. Those women still have their female reproductive system working like they were born with.
I'm talking about creatures that went through a change that altered their own individual identity. RMBolton said it's not considered genetic change, i say call it what you want, it's a dramatic individual change at all levels.
To create a change in somatic cells you only need a vehicle (some microorganisms can do that) to insert a different gene in the nucleous. As that cell reproduces, and so on, they will spead that change.
The theory that those changes could have an impact on germlike cells (even if by a tiny percentage) would explain the molding of species through generations and it would not be random but following a pattern of consistant alteration (that's what is lacking in the mutation theory).

Sorry, I have to chime in one last time here. What happens with animals that change sex is a change in gene expression due to environmental stimuli. Vertebrates, as RMBolton stated earlier, form "templates" as fetuses and then develop into males or females after certain conditions are met. In the case of mammals, the presence of testosterone dictates a male. In the case of certain reptiles, incubation dictates sex. In either case, both sexes have the genes to become male or female, no new genes are added. In humans fetuses all start out as females because they are "easier" to make. Again, this is why human males and most other male mammals have nipples. It is not until testosterone is released that the fetus starts growing male parts. With humans, it's irreversible (except for plastic surgery), but with certain fish and amphibians, it's not. It's not so hard to understand especially since these animals have no external appendages (ie penises) to be reabsorbed. When you consider the ability of certain amphibians to regrow lost limbs, it's not so far fetched. AGAIN, these animals have the genes to grow both male and female parts. No new genes are created when changing sexes.

Joe

P.S. My previous example was right on, just not as extreme as the complete sex change in certain fish and amphibians. The process is irreversible in humans.

[Double J]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
Heck, i promissed this thread would have an end but i wanted to submit one final thought.

Have we not had like 30 of these?

Originally posted by JimmyDavid

Still on the mutation causing evolution. How do you explain that a mutation goes around the "contained factor"? Most species are territorrial and live all their lives around a certain area. )..

Wrong.
Not to mention, territory and range are entirely different!
A territory simply refers to an area in which one animal, or a cohesive group will defend from others of the same species.

Originally posted by JimmyDavid

Also many species relate only with members of their hurd or group (even sexually)..

What exactly are you getting at here?

Originally posted by JimmyDavid

I could see mutation being responsible for creating a locale, but not an entire species.

I think we are all dumber for having read the above quote.
Think about this again really hard Jimmy. Does it not make sense that a locale specific population could be considered part of the speciation process? All they need is time, and some selective pressure.

[JimmyDavid]

[i]Originally posted by Double J




What exactly are you getting at ? [/B]

What i'm getting at is that i agree that life depends on genetic variation. But i believe
mutation is not the only tool to spark that.

What bothers you is that you can't proove that's wrong. You can only proove that so far it's the only way known.


what originated the very first genetic formed creature, before there was a genetic code to mutate from?

[Double J]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
What i'm getting at is that i agree that life depends on genetic variation. But i believe
mutation is not the only tool to spark that.

What bothers you is that you can't proove that's wrong. You can only proove that so far it's the only way known.


what originated the very first genetic formed creature, before there was a genetic code to mutate from?

Sweet Christ Jimmy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have you even READ MY POSTS?????????????????????????

I am frankly at a loss for words.

Does this above quote make any sense to anybody else in reference to what my arguements have been?