Something puzzling me regarding testing of evolution

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ginger, there is no contradiction between clones and evolution theory. If that seemed apparent to you, it wasn't to me or maybe other people?...

Evolution theory is not debunked by cloning, rather the theory is supported by cloning.

I think you may be missing the bigger picture of just what evolution theory is. A theory in science is a description of how all the pieces fit together to produce a result. In the case of evolution theory, the genetic process is the underlying mechanism and the resulting life forms we see are the result. The fact we can manipulate the genetics and correctly predict the results is evidence we have the theory right.

 

[drkitten]

Which depends in turn on what the word, "simpler" means. Some apparently 'simple' organisms have thousands more genes than apparently 'complex' organisms.

Oddly enough, mammals tend to be among the 'simplest' organisms when measured by gene count. Reptiles have huge genomes by comparison.

The reason for this is fairly simple; as viviparous creatures, mammals develop in an extremely controlled environment. Most of a reptile's genes are the equivalent of "high altitude modifications" in recipes -- "If the temperature is thus and such, manufacture THIS protein. If there is an abundance of this substance available, manufacture THIS protein." And so forth. Baby alligators can develop at any temperature between pretty-damn-cold and unbelievably-hot, but kittens tend only to develop at inside-mommy-cat temperature, which simplifies the 'baking' instructions tremendously.

And that's another reason why return to egg-laying is unlikely for mammals. That's a lot of information that would need to be reconstructed or reinvented from scratch.

 

[Sunstar]

Evolution theory is not debunked by cloning, rather the theory is supported by cloning.

I think you may be missing the bigger picture of just what evolution theory is. A theory in science is a description of how all the pieces fit together to produce a result. In the case of evolution theory, the genetic process is the underlying mechanism and the resulting life forms we see are the result. The fact we can manipulate the genetics and correctly predict the results is evidence we have the theory right.

THis is not correct or a correct evaluation of anything i said. A scientific theory is first based on observation and afterwards it is modified. Nothing i said was based on non-observation. If you are talking about theories based on ideas, i did no such thing.

 

[Sunstar]

THis is not correct or a correct evaluation of anything i said. A scientific theory is first based on observation and afterwards it is modified. Nothing i said was based on non-observation. If you are talking about theories based on ideas, i did no such thing.

For example, i did not say that evolution theory was debunked, nor did i say it was debunked in the way you said i tried to debunk it. I simply didn't try to debunk it at all.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Oddly enough, mammals tend to be among the 'simplest' organisms when measured by gene count. Reptiles have huge genomes by comparison.

The reason for this is fairly simple; as viviparous creatures, mammals develop in an extremely controlled environment. Most of a reptile's genes are the equivalent of "high altitude modifications" in recipes -- "If the temperature is thus and such, manufacture THIS protein. If there is an abundance of this substance available, manufacture THIS protein." And so forth. Baby alligators can develop at any temperature between pretty-damn-cold and unbelievably-hot, but kittens tend only to develop at inside-mommy-cat temperature, which simplifies the 'baking' instructions tremendously.

And that's another reason why return to egg-laying is unlikely for mammals. That's a lot of information that would need to be reconstructed or reinvented from scratch.

That's really interesting. What about the non-mammals that give live birth, such as some species of snakes and sharks? (I understand that essentially what happens is that the eggs incubate in the mother, not that there is some analog to the uterus, umbilical cord, etc. - just curious as to whether or not it leads to some of the same kind of adjustments in the genome.)

 

[drkitten]

That's really interesting. What about the non-mammals that give live birth, such as some species of snakes and sharks? (I understand that essentially what happens is that the eggs incubate in the mother, not that there is some analog to the uterus, umbilical cord, etc. - just curious as to whether or not it leads to some of the same kind of adjustments in the genome.)

I don't know; I'm not that good a geneticist, I'm afraid.

I suspect that there wouldn't be as extensive an effect in snakes and sharks, if only because mommy-shark/mommy-snake temperature isn't nearly as stable as mommy-cat. But take that particular SWAG with as large a grain of salt as you see fit; I recommend the salt licks one leaves out for the cattle in the winter.

 

[Piggy]

Well, Joaquín is making something of a name for himself as an actor now (Walk the Line, Signs, Gladiator.) I first heard about the other siblings in some profile of River when he began to receive recognition.

So can you explain Joaquín's name? It sounds like his parents were smoking dope when they named the other kids but straight when it came to Joaquín or possibly the other way around.

(Ah, I see that Joaquín's IMDB bio says he called himself Leaf for a while to conform to the names of his older brother and sister River and Rain, so Leaf was not yet another unfortunately named child [although according to IMDB there were two more sisters named Liberty and Summer.] The bio also says he was born in Puerto Rico while his parents were missionaries there, so I guess that sort of explains his name but still I'm not sure why the parents didn't go with something like Playa [Beach], Mar [Ocean/Sea], Arbol [Tree], or Montaña [Mountain], given the trend with the other children.)

That's funny b/c I had heard of Joaquin, but was not aware that he was the same person as Leaf, which is the name I knew him by back in GNV (although I didn't know him personally -- he's several years younger than I am). I assumed it was his given name.

The Phoenix family were hard core granola. They didn't even eat honey -- exploiting bees and all that.

So your guess is as good as mine what they were thinking.

 

[Cuddles]

Well, for one thing, it takes more than just DNA to clone an organism, at least with current technology. Generally speaking, you need a nucleus from a living cell, and a living egg of the organism you are trying to clone. The usual procedure is to take a nucleus from a somatic cell and inject it into an egg. Possibly, if you had a frozen or otherwise very well preserved cell from an extinct organism, you could put a nucleus into the egg of a related non-extinct organism. For example, there has been talk of using tissue from frozen mammoths, several which have been found, and cloning them using elephant eggs. It hasn't actually been done. I don't know if it's been attempted.

It's worse than that. You don't just need the DNA and an egg, you also need a mother. For something like a mammoth, it's assumed that modern elephants are probably similar enough to be able to carry a mammoth fetus to term, but for animals which do not have any close relatives still alive, that's likely to be rather more of a problem.