Why didn't animals evolve wheels?

[JimC]

OK, one word answer.

No.

[Jason]

I knew I'd blunder it.

[Jason]

Fuck it, I know Seth is being a lazy disingenuous asshole, but I have to say that the idea of so-called 'nursery' planets, or ecosystems, is not new and has been investigated, and yes it is possible to oversee the evolution of new species. And YES vestigial organs still occur.

Time travel is, however, not possible. You can quote me on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology

[Jason]

Oh, and because I'm sure you won't do your own homework Seth here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium

[Seth]

Sigh. I'll try to whack this, though my biology knowledge is woefully inadequate and I'll probably blunder it.

Short answers: Yes it is possible, in fact 'vestigial' genes are practically unavoidable because a gene often expresses more than one thing in a phenotype

We have the intelligence and the ability - it's best and most easily done through either artificial selection via selective breeding or artificial selection via artificial environment - though direct genetic manipulation (actually programming in ACTG) is possible and becoming more practical as time goes on.

Is time travel possible? Because if it is we should have already gone back in time and rewritten our own genetic codes a billion billion times by now..

I hope I didn't fuck that up too badly.

Why thank you for actually answering the question. Yes, it is possible, and it only requires present human-level intelligence to do. Very good. Was that so hard?

[Seth]

OK, one word answer.

No.

Ah, well, you're wrong there, don't you see? It is both possible and has factually been done by human beings using their existing knowledge, skill and level of intelligence. I'm quite surprised that you didn't know this. This renders your insistence on being considered an expert on the subject rather suspect, wouldn't you say?

[Seth]

Fuck it, I know Seth is being a lazy disingenuous asshole,

Who? Me? All I did was ask a couple of questions intended to examine the depth of knowledge and expertise of those members who purport to be well-informed or experts on genetics.

but I have to say that the idea of so-called 'nursery' planets, or ecosystems, is not new and has been investigated, and yes it is possible to oversee the evolution of new species. And YES vestigial organs still occur.

Indeed. And moreover it does not require any sort of supremely advanced intelligence to accomplish this task. We mere humans do it all the time these days.

So who's to say it has not been done in the past by some other mediocre intelligence?

Time travel is, however, not possible. You can quote me on that.

What is your critically robust scientific evidence that time travel is not possible?

[JimC]

OK, one word answer.

No.

Ah, well, you're wrong there, don't you see? It is both possible and has factually been done by human beings using their existing knowledge, skill and level of intelligence. I'm quite surprised that you didn't know this. This renders your insistence on being considered an expert on the subject rather suspect, wouldn't you say?

What utter bullshit, as usual. You were suggesting the usual creationist crap in the guise of intelligent aliens/god controlling evolutionary change by intelligent design of life on Earth in the past, not recent genetic manipulation by human scientists (which I mentioned in my earlier post). These recent manipulations leave a clear and distinct signature, which would also appear on the work of an old "intelligent design god" in the past. They are also very, very minor in nature, and are nowhere near species creation...

Evolution by natural selection leaves many, many signposts to its random nature, utter lack of foresight, and tendency to fill a genome with genetic detritus that leaves a very clear signature. The random changes in the non-operational parts of an organism's DNA occur at a measurable rate, and these correlate very well with the fossil record. So, unless you want to postulate intelligent aliens that firstly made the massive effort to direct evolution by some super technology, and then (being devious, lying bastards) went to the even more massive effort of adding all the random mess expected from natural evolution (to test the faith of future beings, no doubt ), you are simply totally and utterly wrong.

So, you can take your mendacious questions, join them to your massive ignorance of all things scientific, and shove them up your arse.

[Jason]

[Jason]

What is your critically robust scientific evidence that time travel is not possible?

Napalm and silly putty.


I mean LSD and assorted psychotropics. You?

[Jason]

The random changes in the non-operational parts of an organism's DNA occur at a measurable rate, and these correlate very well with the fossil record. So, unless you want to postulate intelligent aliens that firstly made the massive effort to direct evolution by some super technology, and then (being devious, lying bastards) went to the even more massive effort of adding all the random mess expected from natural evolution (to test the faith of future beings, no doubt ), you are simply totally and utterly wrong.

Does this mean there is a certain.. 'stratification' in so called 'junk' DNA that correlates random genetic 'drift' occurring generation to generation in a way that is commensurate with the geological strata in which the fossils are found?

That is.. hmm.. that there is regular, 'metered', random variation in this junk DNA, that is not operated on by natural selection because it doesn't code for anything, that can be used to estimate the genealogical 'age' of an organism such as is commensurate with the fossil record of its evolution?

I'm not sure how to ask the question more simply while retaining some sense of the subject.

[Seth]

OK, one word answer.

No.

Ah, well, you're wrong there, don't you see? It is both possible and has factually been done by human beings using their existing knowledge, skill and level of intelligence. I'm quite surprised that you didn't know this. This renders your insistence on being considered an expert on the subject rather suspect, wouldn't you say?

What utter bullshit, as usual. You were suggesting the usual creationist crap in the guise of intelligent aliens/god controlling evolutionary change by intelligent design of life on Earth in the past, not recent genetic manipulation by human scientists (which I mentioned in my earlier post). These recent manipulations leave a clear and distinct signature, which would also appear on the work of an old "intelligent design god" in the past. They are also very, very minor in nature, and are nowhere near species creation...

Well, it's YOU who is suggesting "creationist crap" at the moment. And these recent manipulations only leave a signature as compared to non-modified organisms, do they not? It's not like there is a "Modified by Monsanto" label encoded into the genetic structure is there? Absent knowledge of the manipulation, say ten thousand years from now after all the information has been lost to global warming, how would an investigator in the future identify the changes?

And the question is whether an existing evolved organism's DNA can be manipulated to reprogram the morphology or function, not whether an entire organism can be created from basic DNA building blocks.

If it is true that such manipulation is both possible and not impossibly difficult, then the obvious question is how you, or other "evolutionists" can rational preclude the possibility of, as you say, "intelligent aliens/gods" controlling evolutionary change? After all, such an "intelligent alien" would not have to be much smarter than, well, you are in order to accomplish some sort of design project, would he/she/it? And if that engineering took place 160 million years ago, or later, how would you know?

Evolution by natural selection leaves many, many signposts to its random nature, utter lack of foresight, and tendency to fill a genome with genetic detritus that leaves a very clear signature. The random changes in the non-operational parts of an organism's DNA occur at a measurable rate, and these correlate very well with the fossil record. So, unless you want to postulate intelligent aliens that firstly made the massive effort to direct evolution by some super technology, and then (being devious, lying bastards) went to the even more massive effort of adding all the random mess expected from natural evolution (to test the faith of future beings, no doubt ), you are simply totally and utterly wrong.

So, you can take your mendacious questions, join them to your massive ignorance of all things scientific, and shove them up your arse.[/quote]

[JimC]

I've answered your question fully, Seth, you simply are not able to understand it...

[JimC]

The random changes in the non-operational parts of an organism's DNA occur at a measurable rate, and these correlate very well with the fossil record. So, unless you want to postulate intelligent aliens that firstly made the massive effort to direct evolution by some super technology, and then (being devious, lying bastards) went to the even more massive effort of adding all the random mess expected from natural evolution (to test the faith of future beings, no doubt ), you are simply totally and utterly wrong.

Does this mean there is a certain.. 'stratification' in so called 'junk' DNA that correlates random genetic 'drift' occurring generation to generation in a way that is commensurate with the geological strata in which the fossils are found?

That is.. hmm.. that there is regular, 'metered', random variation in this junk DNA, that is not operated on by natural selection because it doesn't code for anything, that can be used to estimate the genealogical 'age' of an organism such as is commensurate with the fossil record of its evolution?

I'm not sure how to ask the question more simply while retaining some sense of the subject.

What happens is that there is a steady rate of mutational change in "neutral" DNA, the part of the genome that is not expressed as a phenotype (If organisms were designed by competent engineers, there would be none of this inefficient genetic material...). Because those areas of the genome are selectively neutral, natural selection does not exert the ruthless pruning of the vast majority of mutations that it does in the phenotypically active regions of the genome, and thus they accumulate.
By working out the average rate of change per million years, if one compares the differences in these areas in various evolutionary lineages, one can get a good estimate of how long ago they had a common ancestor. Generally, this has fitted well with the fossil evidence.

[Seth]

Didn't properly tag edit my previous post as the movie started, so there was some confusion over attributions, sorry. "Secret in their eyes" is quite a good crime drama.