Genus vs. Specie

[cali]

Cali did you read Skeletals response? read that you might actually learn something actually no you would probably think your Wile E. Cyotote still... Man I wish they still made cartoons like that.

I used simplified definitions for YOUR benefit, I have extensive knowledge of genetics.

Have you actually READ my posts, or did you just scan through them?

I have yet to see anything I've said PROVEN wrong.

Simply stating that "samurais are not hybrids" proves nothing. Has anyone seen the F0's that were used in the initial breeding? No, I didn't think so.

Apparently the scientific community cannot even agree on the definition of "Ornata". Going back to skeletalfrog's paper- both 2n and 8n specimens of "ornates" have been catalogged- wich is odd- and impossible- to have 2 seperate genetic architectures within a species.

[GrifTheGreat]

There is no sence in argueing over theories. As a theory is basically just as a hypothesis is. A highly educated guess and yet still a guess. Theory prooves neither right nor wrong and we can argue and speculate and even post paperwork of documentation that is by now completely outdated and still get nowhere. We ourselves are at a standstill. Until the actual breeder clearifies any of this we will just be arguing a point that in the end still results with the same answer. We don't know.

I guess that you are a believer in evolution or science above all else. Perhaps there is more about this world and its creatures that far surpasses our ability to comprehend. Matters such as these will always have theories, but nobody really knows. Without proof despite however many documents on geneology you post up it will not matter. All is outdated and basically needs to be washed clean and restarted a new.

I am no longer going to post on this thread. Just adding food for thaught. I may spectate but that's all.

PS. I'm not attacking your. Beliefs in any way. I respect everyones opinion and what they believe in.

[SkeletalFrog]

I have yet to see anything I've said PROVEN wrong.

That's not how science works. You can't prove a negative - "there are no white ravens" - except under extremely specific and limited circumstances.

Yes, you have raised potential issues, but that's all they are, potential. Acting as if they're definitive is highly premature. Yes, X or Y or Z could have happened, but without actual data supporting those claims, they're just hypotheses, and science is built on the corpses of dead hypotheses.

Simply stating that "samurais are not hybrids" proves nothing. Has anyone seen the F0's that were used in the initial breeding? No, I didn't think so.

Similarly, stating that they are, or could be, also proves nothing.

Just because there are two possibilities does not mean those two possibilities are equally likely. Given that your hypothesis would require the acquisition of ornata from a single location (which may or may not even exist anymore, thanks to deforestation), breeding it, concealing the offspring's nature, *and* offspring that look nothing like one of the parents, while the alternative simply requires that the breeder happened upon a rare genetic mutation (which happens all the time), it's much more likely that "samurai" pacs are simply a mutation.

Consider Bigfoot. What's more likely, that an unknown anthropoid evolved in or migrated to the US leaving no fossil record or evidence for several hundred thousand years in spite of massively growing human populations, or that every so often someone in a gorilla suit plays a hoax?

Given Occam's razor, Bayseian priors, and general logic, the simpler explanations should be preferred until clear evidence of alternatives is found.

Apparently the scientific community cannot even agree on the definition of "Ornata". Going back to skeletalfrog's paper- both 2n and 8n specimens of "ornates" have been catalogged- wich is odd- and impossible- to have 2 seperate genetic architectures within a species.

While the existence of a 2n ornata population seems odd, there are other possibilities, such as that the 2n specimens were mis-identified cranwelli (especially likely if they were tadpoles) or that something went wrong with the karyotyping. Plus, there's the issue of which the type specimen is - if the type specimen is 8n, then the 8n individuals retain the ornata name, and the 2n population gets a new name.

Remember "species" are only real in a vague and temporary sense - it's an artificial box we construct for human convenience. It's more real than any other taxonomic level, yes, but life is considerabl more complex than the ICZN code can cope with, or ever will.

There is no sence in argueing over theories. As a theory is basically just as a hypothesis is. A highly educated guess and yet still a guess. Theory prooves neither right nor wrong and we can argue and speculate and even post paperwork of documentation that is by now completely outdated and still get nowhere.

Not actually. A hypothesis is an educated guess, an idea based on current knowledge. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, passed, and now has data supporting it.

That's the key, data.

[GrifTheGreat]

That's not how science works. You can't prove a negative - "there are no white ravens" - except under extremely specific and limited circumstances.

Yes, you have raised potential issues, but that's all they are, potential. Acting as if they're definitive is highly premature. Yes, X or Y or Z could have happened, but without actual data supporting those claims, they're just hypotheses, and science is built on the corpses of dead hypotheses.





Similarly, stating that they are, or could be, also proves nothing.

Just because there are two possibilities does not mean those two possibilities are equally likely. Given that your hypothesis would require the acquisition of ornata from a single location (which may or may not even exist anymore, thanks to deforestation), breeding it, concealing the offspring's nature, *and* offspring that look nothing like one of the parents, while the alternative simply requires that the breeder happened upon a rare genetic mutation (which happens all the time), it's much more likely that "samurai" pacs are simply a mutation.

Consider Bigfoot. What's more likely, that an unknown anthropoid evolved in or migrated to the US leaving no fossil record or evidence for several hundred thousand years in spite of massively growing human populations, or that every so often someone in a gorilla suit plays a hoax?

Given Occam's razor, Bayseian priors, and general logic, the simpler explanations should be preferred until clear evidence of alternatives is found.



While the existence of a 2n ornata population seems odd, there are other possibilities, such as that the 2n specimens were mis-identified cranwelli (especially likely if they were tadpoles) or that something went wrong with the karyotyping. Plus, there's the issue of which the type specimen is - if the type specimen is 8n, then the 8n individuals retain the ornata name, and the 2n population gets a new name.

Remember "species" are only real in a vague and temporary sense - it's an artificial box we construct for human convenience. It's more real than any other taxonomic level, yes, but life is considerabl more complex than the ICZN code can cope with, or ever will.



Not actually. A hypothesis is an educated guess, an idea based on current knowledge. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, passed, and now has data supporting it.

That's the key, data.

Sorry, poor wording on my part. I should have said that a Theory starts as a hypothesis, but theory isn't always correct even though evidence is produced. Sometimes I think the scientific community goes fishing for proof so much that they will use any means necissary to prove their theory to be right. Kind of like the theory of evolution(which Darwin on his death bed claimed was false). If this were true than why are there no known missing links in fossile evidence? I believe because there isn't a missing link. It just didn't take place as they claim it did. We did not evolve from apes even though we are closely related you do not still see full grown men coming out of the jungle that just evolved. I know they have several fossilized skuls of Neanderthals, but I don't actually think they were men or a missing link, but just another type of ape that had existed. And became extinct.

Big Bang Theory. Cannot truely be tested because amn cannot construct a large enough piece of matter and then blow it up in a are devoid of air/gravity etc and create a universe or galaxy. Just a guess to me.

To completely change your DNA and or complete body structure is pretty far fetched. Especially with Dinsaurs being supposedly closely related to birds or them stating that birds evolved from them. A cold blooded reptile no matter how many years pass will not become a warm blooded bird. It would not happen. (Sorry just venting a little). To me despite the definition of the word "Theory" defined as having proven data from testing to back it up in my opinion is still a guess. Some theories cannot actually be tested like the 2 I've mentioned. You can not simulate the events oramount of time that was supposed to have taken place due to size of what pieces of matter that were involved and creatures that no longer exist.



Sorry if its a little off topic. Just explaining why I said Theory is just a guess. I find this all facinating, but hard to swallow if you know what I mean.not all theories have all substantial evidence to back them, but most do.

[SkeletalFrog]

Kind of like the theory of evolution(which Darwin on his death bed claimed was false).

Actually, this is a myth. The person who claimed it did not actually visit Darwin on his deathbed, and never even met him. It's an urban legend like "Cops undercover have to tell you they're a cop if asked".

If this were true than why are there no known missing links in fossile evidence? I believe because there isn't a missing link. It just didn't take place as they claim it did. We did not evolve from apes even though we are closely related you do not still see full grown men coming out of the jungle that just evolved. I know they have several fossilized skuls of Neanderthals, but I don't actually think they were men or a missing link, but just another type of ape that had existed. And became extinct.

We have tons of missing links, showing a complete gradual transition from modern man all the way back to prosimians. Neanderthals were actually the same species as us, just a different subspecies, and if properly groomed could walk by you on the street without you noticing.

Big Bang Theory. Cannot truely be tested because amn cannot construct a large enough piece of matter and then blow it up in a are devoid of air/gravity etc and create a universe or galaxy. Just a guess to me.

You can test things without directly observing them (either because they're in the past, or because they're subatomic, etc). The explosion of the Big Bang can still be observed, albeit now very old and nowhere near as intense, as the comsic microwave background. We can even reconstruct unevenness in the original explosion based on irregularities in the cosmic microwave background.

To completely change your DNA and or complete body structure is pretty far fetched. Especially with Dinosaurs being supposedly closely related to birds or them stating that birds evolved from them. A cold blooded reptile no matter how many years pass will not become a warm blooded bird. It would not happen. (Sorry just venting a little).

Actually, that's easy. We can actually cause a Xenopus tadpole to show the gut morphology or a Budgets tadpole and vice versa, just by selectively inhibiting or enhancing certain genes. And this isn't unusual, it's the norm.

Think of it like building a house. My apartment and Bill Gates' home are very similar - made of wood, metal, glass, plastic, paint, etc. The difference isn't so much the components, but how they're arranged and in what quantities. Look into Evo-Devo (evolutionary developmental biology), it's got some amazing new advances in the evolution of gross morphological traits.

Endothermy is actually pretty easy, just a few tweaks to the mitochondria. You can turn scales into feathers with just a few shifts in gene expression patterns.

To me despite the definition of the word "Theory" defined as having proven data from testing to back it up in my opinion is still a guess. Some theories cannot actually be tested like the 2 I've mentioned. You can not simulate the events oramount of time that was supposed to have taken place due to size of what pieces of matter that were involved and creatures that no longer exist.

Testing evolution is part of my thesis. It's surprisingly easy. In fact, the biggest difficulty in many biological systems is trying to get the system *not* to evolve while you're in the middle of studying it.

[GrifTheGreat]

Actually, this is a myth. The person who claimed it did not actually visit Darwin on his deathbed, and never even met him. It's an urban legend like "Cops undercover have to tell you they're a cop if asked".



We have tons of missing links, showing a complete gradual transition from modern man all the way back to prosimians. Neanderthals were actually the same species as us, just a different subspecies, and if properly groomed could walk by you on the street without you noticing.



You can test things without directly observing them (either because they're in the past, or because they're subatomic, etc). The explosion of the Big Bang can still be observed, albeit now very old and nowhere near as intense, as the comsic microwave background. We can even reconstruct unevenness in the original explosion based on irregularities in the cosmic microwave background.



Actually, that's easy. We can actually cause a Xenopus tadpole to show the gut morphology or a Budgets tadpole and vice versa, just by selectively inhibiting or enhancing certain genes. And this isn't unusual, it's the norm.

Think of it like building a house. My apartment and Bill Gates' home are very similar - made of wood, metal, glass, plastic, paint, etc. The difference isn't so much the components, but how they're arranged and in what quantities. Look into Evo-Devo (evolutionary developmental biology), it's got some amazing new advances in the evolution of gross morphological traits.

Endothermy is actually pretty easy, just a few tweaks to the mitochondria. You can turn scales into feathers with just a few shifts in gene expression patterns.



Testing evolution is part of my thesis. It's surprisingly easy. In fact, the biggest difficulty in many biological systems is trying to get the system *not* to evolve while you're in the middle of studying it.

Hmmm very good points. I still don't believe all is as they say.

You're right about the myth. Just learned this. There is still so much more that I think that we will never fully understand. And to change parts of DNA ourselves causing a change isn't nature doing it by itself. Scales and feathers being made up of the same material doesn't really exlpain the change in structure by means of us changing so.ething causeing mutation not evolution. In that case how come there is no. Fossile evidence of the much larger dinosaurs having feathers and why they were not covered with them instead of a headress like the Utah Raptor. Some with and some without.

If we alter the DNA to cause a change its unatural so therfore I see it as we are causing a mutation rather than an actual evolutionary change. The only true evolution I believe is adaptation which doent usually involve a change in biological makeup or anatomy. Just the abilituy to cope and thrive in less than ideal conditions or worse.

I see now what you're saying though. I still think the Big Bang Theory is a bunch of nonsence.

[SkeletalFrog]

And to change parts of DNA ourselves causing a change isn't nature doing it by itself. Scales and feathers being made up of the same material doesn't really exlpain the change in structure by means of us changing so.ething causeing mutation not evolution.

Why would it be different? It doesn't matter if an albino appears via natural breeding or is created via genetic engineering, it's still an albino, and still has the albino allele. Indeed, if anything, Nature is superior to us at creating mutations, as our methods are regrettably rather crude still, and does so with great regularity. Indeed, statistically, every one of us has 10 *new* mutations, not present in either parent, that affect protein coding (and hundreds that are "silent").

In that case how come there is no. Fossile evidence of the much larger dinosaurs having feathers and why they were not covered with them instead of a headress like the Utah Raptor. Some with and some without.

The "feather headress" is Hollywood and art, not science - we have evidence of full, bird-style wing feathers on the arms of Velociraptor and other species, and current evidence suggests that they were fully feathered.

As for the larger ones, there are multiple issues. First and foremost is preservation - feathers preserve very rarely, and there's only a few deposits in the world of high enough quality to retain evidence of them. It's not that other things didn't have feathers, just that the coarse sediment prevented fine details from being preserved. Aside from that, there's the issue of size - feathers may provide valuable insulation for a small animal, but cause a large one to overheat, so large dinosaurs may have lost them, much like why elephants and rhinos are mostly bald. Finally, there's relationships - only one group of dinosaurs, the maniraptorans (including raptors, T. rex, and therizinosaurs), had what we could recognize as feathers. Others, including other predatory dinosaurs like Allosaurus and Spinosaurus, diverged before feathers evolved.

If we alter the DNA to cause a change its unatural so therfore I see it as we are causing a mutation rather than an actual evolutionary change. The only true evolution I believe is adaptation which doent usually involve a change in biological makeup or anatomy. Just the abilituy to cope and thrive in less than ideal conditions or worse.

Actually, adaptation is most often a change in anatomy or biochemistry. Look at the diversity in frog shapes - hoppers, walkers, jumpers, burrowers, swimmers, all with bodies adapted to their mode of locomotion. And no piddly stuff - doubling or halving of leg muscle mass, significant differences in muscle properties, springy tendons.


An excellent primer for this is actually the product of an old newsgroup, talk.origins. Their overall FAQ is here: Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution" with links to other FAQs about particular issues (including some you're raised). This other one here Introduction to Evolutionary Biology is a good introduction to evolution, its mechanics, common misconceptions, modern data, etc.

I will warn you that it's a bit dry and tends towards the "wall of text" style of presentation, but it's extremely useful, and should answer most of your questions quite thoroughly.