Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page 1123...next »
Re:
sav002sav002 05 May 2009 12:36
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

I was thinking about that too teut. I think that it could go either way with these "assumptions" because there is fossil evidence that is supporting their findings, but as well they have to make some assumptions as to the genetic makeups to the organisms. since there is a lot to guess about, and like chad said we don't know what their internal anatomy was like for sure and they really don't know what genes the organisms may or may not have had. so i guess i think that in the end they are just assumptions.

Re: by sav002sav002, 05 May 2009 12:36
jcardonickjcardonick 05 May 2009 04:35
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

I believe that the fossils are only the foundation of a bigger question. The fossils just give us a glimpse of possibilities and a hint of what may have happened, true or not. But by having the question (fossils) and clues are we able to investigate, find possible answers and try to complete the puzzle presented to us. Carrol has some excellent points and ideas. How can we really prove anything wrong when we didn't know it to be right in the first place?

by jcardonickjcardonick, 05 May 2009 04:35
elp001elp001 05 May 2009 04:00
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

I also agree that the book seems to leap to the conclusion that these things are the truth, when we have no hard evidence. It seems that the author is not accepting of other theories, just wants readers to accept what he says is true. It is hard for me to accept that the same gene is responsible for so many variations in expression.

by elp001elp001, 05 May 2009 04:00
TeutersTeuters 05 May 2009 03:54
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

are they really assumptions?

by TeutersTeuters, 05 May 2009 03:54
alg003alg003 04 May 2009 21:28
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

In this book there findings make sense but i dont agree with the assumptions made in order to "prove" their findings.

by alg003alg003, 04 May 2009 21:28
emm002emm002 04 May 2009 02:41
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

I do not agree with how a lot of their finding are made from assumptions…..science is not about assumptions, or proving things correct………..as scientists we can only prove things to be wrong.

by emm002emm002, 04 May 2009 02:41
emm002emm002 04 May 2009 02:39
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Swine Flu

It is thought that the first case of H1N1, commonly known as swine flu, appeared in Mexico back in February.

by emm002emm002, 04 May 2009 02:39
emm002emm002 04 May 2009 02:35
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Growing New Teeth

Oh this is fabulous! now people won't have to care for their teeth at all! (sarcastic)

by emm002emm002, 04 May 2009 02:35
Re: the book
Matt KMatt K 03 May 2009 21:43
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

I had this question too when reading

Re: the book by Matt KMatt K, 03 May 2009 21:43
Emily SewickEmily Sewick 02 May 2009 20:53
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

I agree with Alicia in that the EFMB does make sense, because this author has used multiple resources to help gather his ideas and bring them together. However, I still don't understand how the evolution of appendages between different species can all be dependent on HOX genes? I guess it is hard for me to accept these as facts, especially ones from tetrapods and other species that lived a very long time ago. We were not alive then, so how can we speculate that these were the genes for the development of these species.

by Emily SewickEmily Sewick, 02 May 2009 20:53
the book
PrewettPrewett 02 May 2009 19:01
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

I think that what is presented in EFMB makes sense, but isn't this just one guys ideas or is all of this stuff accepted by most geneticists?

the book by PrewettPrewett, 02 May 2009 19:01
Re:
smw3203smw3203 02 May 2009 03:12
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

I really dont think the book presents everything as a fact, i think they present their observations then give assumptions from those observations. I also don't think this book author wrote it as technical as they would for a research paper, so alot of their supporting fact from other research aren't really given as much reference. I mean personally i wouldn't want to read a 200+ pg scientific research paper

Re: by smw3203smw3203, 02 May 2009 03:12
Drew SDrew S 01 May 2009 13:22
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Swine Flu

i found this site to be pretty good it tells u about everything u might want to know about swine flu
http://www.medicinenet.com/swine_flu/article.htm

by Drew SDrew S, 01 May 2009 13:22
Re:
bdc004bdc004 27 Apr 2009 00:23
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

I also don't like how the book presents everything as fact. Nothing about evolution and past organisms is factual. What would happen if humans became extinct and eventually some other form of intelligent being inhabited Earth and they found a human skull? The only evidence that humans had a nose and eyes would be the gaping holes that we know for a fact would be there. However, having never seen a human, they could only assume what those hole's purpose was. It's the same now, scientists can only make educated guesses as to what some being looked like and the rest of science has to accept that on the faith that someone knows what they are talking about. We also have to realize that at any moment, a theory can be crushed and a new one can come from the ashes, kind of like evolution.

Re: by bdc004bdc004, 27 Apr 2009 00:23
Re:
TeutersTeuters 24 Apr 2009 11:58
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

Is the reason they are presenting these assumptions so strongly as facts because it's what they have to make more assumptions off of in the first place? If they don't state their case strongly. Sure we put a lot of weight of evolution on fossils but honestly what else do we have? We can observe organisms now for evidence or/and we could use the many many many years of fossils to make our best go at the story.

Re: by TeutersTeuters, 24 Apr 2009 11:58
jmag07_2011jmag07_2011 23 Apr 2009 22:11
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

When you look into the past you pretty much have to make assumptions. None of us were there when insects first evolved wings. So to figure out how it happened we're gonna have to make some inferences based on the evidence that we have. I suppose my main problem with the book is how strongly they present these presumptions as facts. I'll admit that while I was reading I wasn't thinking about how much faith they were putting on fossils to tell the story of evolution. It's important to keep in mind how much of this is guess work, if we take all of the suppositions in this book as their told and don't question what they're based on we can be strongly misled - think how long it took Europeans to figure out the Earth wasn't the center of the universe because everyone took for granted that the Greeks and Romans knew what they were talking about. In conclusion, thanks for pointing out the speculative nature of this book Chad, I need to remember to question what I read.

by jmag07_2011jmag07_2011, 23 Apr 2009 22:11
bkw002bkw002 23 Apr 2009 16:28
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

I don't think I have been considering what I have been reading as much as you guys, but after reading your discussion, I would have to agree that it does base a lot of their findings on assumptions, but it seems that most of it has been working for their good??
In the Chapter, Carrol has pretty much driven it home that evolution of appendages is what has enabled organisms to really compete in the world, so I felt a little biased when I got to the argument that was taking place about the evolution of wings. One side was arguing that the wings just developed as outgrowths on wingless insects, like magically or what?? (that's my bias) because the other side obviously was about wing being derived from an appendage already present. Since he had already introduced the chapter with how appendages have been the ancestor, it didn't surprise me the evidence he had for the 2nd argument. I did find it more useful, though, his discription of how the wings had been specialized after different placements and versions of the wings (because fossil evidence of the wing placement on abdomins and 1st thoracic segment), and how the Hox gene suppress the expression of the wings in those place today.

by bkw002bkw002, 23 Apr 2009 16:28
Ricky Rosssss
Kildow06Kildow06 22 Apr 2009 19:06
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Chapter 7

Chad you do make a good point ( I will admit), however, the evidence (mainly being folsils) seem to correlate with the whole evo devo theory. I am not saying the evo devo theory is correct, im just saying their genetic explainations for evolution seem to be evident in fossils. For example, the genetic switch responsible for wing-promoting gene. The genetic explanation for how different number and type of wings is controled by switches. This can be seen in fossil records of the aquatic nymph compared to modern dragonfly. This is also apparent for pectoral fins from sauripterus evolving into fingers. Yes, there are many assumptions made about genetics based only off of fossil records, but both seem to correlate. So yes we can assume we got some nifty out of the random integration of a viral genome, as long as there is some sort of evidence that seems to correspond with that hypothesis.

Ricky Rosssss by Kildow06Kildow06, 22 Apr 2009 19:06

Going along with what Chad said about if we only have the fossil records then we have no way of knowing what genes are actually present unless being expressed. If the skulls of the bull terriers that we discussed in class monday had been found and we didn't know they came from the same species there would be no way of knowing why the skulls gradually became more slopey. It wouls just be assumed that they were expressing different genes.

I some what agree with Chad but apparently not totallly. Folsil record can actually help scientists conducted hypothesis for many things such as genetic information that Caroll try to come accross in this chapter. For example, if the fossil records contained limbs, then, scientists can strongly claim that this particular organism have the gene that express to make limbs. However, the fossil records with out soft body tissues, scientist will not able to hypothesize any genes in that organism is not expressed (when a gene is not express, it hardly leave any evidence that it even exist in a fosil record). Anyway my point is that fossil records do help scientist understant some genetic info on a particular organism but not so indeep.

Fossil records & genetic info by HoaLeHoaLe, 19 Apr 2009 18:54
page 1123...next »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License