Something puzzling me regarding testing of evolution

[nvidiot]

Whales are not fish. They are mammals. They haven't "devolved" whatever you take that to mean. They merely colonised a new habitat and their body shape has subsequently changed to accomodate this.

You seem a little confused as to what is regarded as "primitive" in evolutionary terms. Care to expand on your concept of the idea?

 

[Sunstar]

Whales are not fish.
They did not evolve from semi-mammals. They evolved from mammals and still are mammals.
Where did you learn your science?

From one layman to another, i don't pretend to know things i don't. But i certainly didn't say originally that the whale was a fish. And even if i did, it wasn't the point of the OP. So, instead of getting side tracked with all this ********, please respond to the OP.

 

[Sunstar]

Whales are not fish. They are mammals. They haven't "devolved" whatever you take that to mean. They merely colonised a new habitat and their body shape has subsequently changed to accomodate this.

You seem a little confused as to what is regarded as "primitive" in evolutionary terms. Care to expand on your concept of the idea?

If you can quote me it might help, otherwise reffering to one word out of a whole load in this thread will not jog my memory sufficiently.

 

[John Jones]

From one layman to another, i don't pretend to know things i don't. But i certainly didn't say originally that the whale was a fish. And even if i did, it wasn't the point of the OP. So, instead of getting side tracked with all this ********, please respond to the OP.

I am a layman in all respects and i am confused a little by certain evolutionary theories. We know that once there were mammals that devolved back into fish

What mammals 'devolved' back into fish?

:doglaugh:

 

[Marduk]

If you can quote me it might help, otherwise reffering to one word out of a whole load in this thread will not jog my memory sufficiently.

Sunstar, your original question was answered by the second post.
what we are talking about now is where you said this

We know that once there were mammals that devolved back into fish.

What is the name of the fish that was once a mammal please ?

 

[Sunstar]

Except in the OP?



McHrozni

As i said, i am a layman, and so i don't know the terminology properly. But the idea should have been assmilated properly without the nitpicking. And even then it doesn't seem to have much to do with my original point.

For the sake of argument, let's correct myself and say that a fish didn't become a mammal and then turn back into a fish, since the whale was a mammal to begin with. That much is fine and dandy. But it doesn't have much to do with my point at all.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Your original OP seems to be framed under two misconceptions:

1. That animals devolve ('We know that once there were mammals that devolved back into fish').

This has already been corrected.

2. That DNA does not decay or remains completely intact in a form that would be clonable.

On 2., if the original specimen is completely fossilized, the only remnants are mineral rock that have completely replaced the organic material. There would be no DNA at all. Not only deterioration is involved, but all sorts of geologic and physical processes. Almost always, there is only partial strands of DNA that remain in a 'good' tissue sample from a nearly fossilized specimen. The further back in time, the less change of this and it deteriorates rather quickly.

 

[Sledge]

Sunstar, instead of posting a wodge of incorrect text, could you ask questions about what you don't understand? You're far more likely to receive useful responses and learn something that way.

 

[Sunstar]

Sunstar, your original question was answered by the second post.
what we are talking about now is where you said this


What is the name of the fish that was once a mammal please ?

I got it wrong evidently. Lest this mar the topic, we shall not dwell on the error there any more because it is childish.

 

[Sunstar]

Your original OP seems to be framed under two misconceptions:

1. That animals devolve ('We know that once there were mammals that devolved back into fish').

This has already been corrected.

2. That DNA does not decay or remains completely intact in a form that would be clonable.

On 2., if the original specimen is completely fossilized, the only remnants are mineral rock that have completely replaced the organic material. There would be no DNA at all. Not only deterioration is involved, but all sorts of geologic and physical processes. Almost always, there is only partial strands of DNA that remain in a 'good' tissue sample from a nearly fossilized specimen. The further back in time, the less change of this and it deteriorates rather quickly.

By the way, it doesn't matter that you are 45.

On point 1) i didn't say that mammals devolved, although it has now become clear that it could have been contrued that way. In fact, i was talking about a whale and the language i used "fish" and "mammal" were not adequate enough.

So, to be more specific and anal, it wasn't corrected.

for point 2) it is not at all clear that time deteriorates DNA, although it evidently does to some fossils. But even if this was true, it wouldn't prevent cloning.

 

[Trent Wray]

Yes, it did strike me as rather weird why someone would bring up fish. Nevertheless, it wasn't me. And i should think that even if it was me, that the whale devolved, so to speak, then there is no real misunderstanding here except by nit picking trawlers.

WTF?

 

[Elizabeth I]

OK, i like McH and Ginger and the last poster's posts. I didn't mean to say that once a species was set on a course it didn't revert again. But yes, as someone pointed out, it was a type of whale. So if you would be so kind as to debunk the whale one, we could end this thread, or perhaps give it fuel in a kind of developing biogenetic cloning topic. Because as was said, and which i was half thinking of, maybe in the future we could isolate certain type of genetic codes to build organisms or even animals from them, and then track the evolutionary lineage more closely.

I'm sorry, but this is completely incoherent.

How old are you? I am 30.

By the way, it doesn't matter that you are 45.

Do you forget what you write as soon as you write it?

And do you also use the aliases rorylee and likelystory?

 

[Marduk]

for point 2) it is not at all clear that time deteriorates DNA, although it evidently does to some fossils. But even if this was true, it wouldn't prevent cloning.

Sunstar, it is very clear that DNA degrades over time
here is a whole paper on that for you
http://www.aapspharmscitech.org/view.asp?art=pt070236
This is the exact reason that the only animals currently cloned were all alive when their DNA was used. It is also the reason that clonaholics are currently searching siberia for frozen mammoth DNA, in the vain hope that it will be good enough to copy. So far it never has been and these are animals that died fairly recently and which have been in a freezer ever since.

It is so well known that DNA degrades over time I wonder why you didn't bother to google it yourself, do you know something we don't ?

 

[Trent Wray]

Sunstar, it is very clear that DNA degrades over time
here is a whole paper on that for you
http://www.aapspharmscitech.org/view.asp?art=pt070236
This is the exact reason that the only animals currently cloned were all alive when their DNA was used. It is also the reason that clonaholics are currently searching siberia for frozen mammoth DNA, in the vain hope that it will be good enough to copy. So far it never has been and these are animals that died fairly recently and which have been in a freezer ever since.

It is so well known that DNA degrades over time I wonder why you didn't bother to google it yourself, do you know something we don't ?

True Cures.

 

[Sunstar]

I didn't come here to argue tit for tat with people, i simply asked a question about DNA and cloning and admitted i am a layman.

What i asked was about trying to clone ancient organisms from DNA. Since it has been pointed out to me that DNA deteriorates with time, my query has been answered.

It is just that it seems to me that the basis of cloning an organism is predicated on DNA. If there is intact ancient DNA then cloning of those organisms should possible, and with the mappings of chemical organisations that produce organisms, i would have thought it possible to either clone or make clones of these ancient organisms anyway.

So to all the people that felt like challenging my statements i just want to say thanks and don't forget your ego hat next time.

 

[John Jones]

As i said, i am a layman, and so i don't know the terminology properly. But the idea should have been assmilated properly without the nitpicking. And even then it doesn't seem to have much to do with my original point.

For the sake of argument, let's correct myself and say that a fish didn't become a mammal and then turn back into a fish, since the whale was a mammal to begin with. That much is fine and dandy. But it doesn't have much to do with my point at all.

Your points have been addressed already.

Do you have any more questions? Remember, there are no stupid questions - just stupid people.

 

[Sunstar]

I'm sorry, but this is completely incoherent.






Do you forget what you write as soon as you write it?

And do you also use the aliases rorylee and likelystory?

I can tell you are a woman.

No, i don't use aliases. You can check that by clicking on my nic and finding my posts. Some of which have not been adequately answered, no less.

 

[Sunstar]

Your points have been addressed already.

Do you have any more questions? Remember, there are no stupid questions - just stupid people.

INdeed, including yourself, since nobody knows everything.

 

[Sunstar]

True Cures.

Do you live in a helicopter? It looks like it.

 

[kuroyume0161]

By the way, it doesn't matter that you are 45.

On point 1) i didn't say that mammals devolved, although it has now become clear that it could have been contrued that way. In fact, i was talking about a whale and the language i used "fish" and "mammal" were not adequate enough.

So, to be more specific and anal, it wasn't corrected.

for point 2) it is not at all clear that time deteriorates DNA, although it evidently does to some fossils. But even if this was true, it wouldn't prevent cloning.

Many times it was cleared up. You specifically said 'mammals that devolved' (read your OP again). Whether that means 'fish' or 'aquatic' doesn't matter. Both of those scenarios were explained. No mammal has evolved or devolved into a fish - here, fish and mammal refers to specific classifications of animals. Many mammals have evolved from terrestrial mammals into aquatic mammals (whales, dolphins, narwhals, seals, walruses, otters, etc.). Some of these are only partially aquatic and either have full terrestrial capabilities as well or partial terrestrial capabilities (which may mean that they are in the process of becoming fully aquatic like whales and dolphins, for instance).

Time doesn't deteriorate DNA at all. It is physical proceses that deteriorate DNA. Some that play a part are:

* Sunlight: UV or IR can damage organic structures.
* Water: the great destroyer. It can carve a mile deep cavern into the ground (Grand Canyon), turn jagged rocks into smooth surfaces, and rip apart just about anything. Give it a few hundred million years.
* Wind: the other great destroyer.
* Mineral deposit/replacement through sedimentary or aquiferous erosion.
* Earthquakes/faults
* Volcanism
* Asteriod impact
* Crustal subduction
* Enzymatic decomposition
* Bacterial decomposition
* and so on

There are so many ways that the organic matter is destroyed, there are probably books on the subject.

The only thing preventing cloning is the acquisition of fully intact DNA strands. This is rare even in humanoid fossils (which are magnitudes younger than many other extinct organisms). Even freeze-dried, well-preserved Woolly Mammoths (from only a few tens of thousands of years ago) did not have complete DNA strands. It required at least ten specimens to get a full DNA sequence! We're talking 50,000 years in a spectrum of evolution in the order of 4,000,000,000 years. Get it?