(Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2014, 02:05 AM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(20-02-2014 01:32 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  A question for Theist...

Why did 'God' not go ahead and give fully aquatic mammals, such as whales and dolphins, gills, instead of lungs? It doesn't seem like an intelligent design for such animals.

Oh, and manatees, too? Though they are not cetaceans.

He gave them blow holes, so they could blow him. ...seems kind of intelligent to me. Facepalm

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 02:16 AM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(23-02-2014 02:05 AM)toadaly Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 01:32 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  A question for Theist...

Why did 'God' not go ahead and give fully aquatic mammals, such as whales and dolphins, gills, instead of lungs? It doesn't seem like an intelligent design for such animals.

Oh, and manatees, too? Though they are not cetaceans.

He gave them blow holes, so they could blow him. ...seems kind of intelligent to me. Facepalm

[Image: kyuhyun-laugh-o.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 07:44 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  But Revs in your mouse example, it seems you're talking more about genetic drift than natural selection.

But I'm probably wrong.

Revenant77x is pretty much just talking about genetic mutation. Natural Selective processes may interact with a particular genetic mutation, or not. If a genetic mutation has no selective benefit, it is not selected for, if it has no selective detriment, it's not selected against. It just remains unhindered or aided by natural selection.

Genetic drift happens when a segment of a population becomes separated and becomes isolated through some sort of genetic barrier, cutting them off from the larger gene pool of the original population. This happens by population by population migration, mountain ranges, floating to an island, a river forming over time preventing the population on one side from reaching the other side, etc... The result being a genetic drift away from the original, larger, more varied gene pool, as the variety of the genes in the original gene pool are now cut off from them, given that the segregated population is small enough to not carry the full range of genes in the original gene pool. So the "new" groups gene pool has "drifted" from the variation of the original gene pool. In this way, the new population now has a statistically slightly different gene pool to draw from, as the percentage of genes present in the population has changed, and some genes lost out on all together if no individual carries one of those genes. In the case of an extreme bottle neck, the difference can be extreme as well.

Think of a population in which, on average, 30% of the people carry genes for blue eyes. If by chance a segment of that population ended up separated on an island and unable to interact with the original population again, and by chance only 10% of them carried genes for blue eyes, the gene pool has drifted toward less blue eyed genes in the population. If the population, by chance, had 55% carriers of blue eyed genes, then the gene pool has drifted toward having more blue eyed genes. If the genetic bottle neck is extreme enough, meaning an extremely small number of individuals, so that by chance 100% of genes are for blue eyes, then if the population survives the extreme genetic bottle neck, you will have a new population of peoples who all have the genes for blue eyes. Or in the reverse, 0% of the population. What's what genetic drift refers to, and how it effects a population.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
Thank you (Rapter) Jesus.

I do have a follow up question...but I'm afriad it's too stupid and not really related.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 03:14 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(23-02-2014 03:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Thank you (Rapter) Jesus.

I do have a follow up question...but I'm afriad it's too stupid and not really related.

No worries Smile. What is it?

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 03:36 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(23-02-2014 03:14 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(23-02-2014 03:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Thank you (Rapter) Jesus.

I do have a follow up question...but I'm afriad it's too stupid and not really related.

No worries Smile. What is it?

I was watching a show (somewhere, honestly don't recall when, where, what or why) and they mentioned junk DNA and how they isolated that DNA and removed it or soemthing from mice and the mice were completely "normal" which I guess it confirmed the fact junk DNA is just there and has no purpose.

Then they went on to mention that blowfish have no junk DNA. I found it odd...

Is junk DNA just mutations that are meaningless? How did a blowfish end up with none?


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(23-02-2014 03:36 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(23-02-2014 03:14 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  No worries Smile. What is it?

I was watching a show (somewhere, honestly don't recall when, where, what or why) and they mentioned junk DNA and how they isolated that DNA and removed it or soemthing from mice and the mice were completely "normal" which I guess it confirmed the fact junk DNA is just there and has no purpose.

Then they went on to mention that blowfish have no junk DNA. I found it odd...

Is junk DNA just mutations that are meaningless? How did a blowfish end up with none?

No, Junk DNA is inactive gene's (like the gene's for gills in humans) and the genetic code is chock full of the stuff. As to the blowfish having none I find that hard to believe.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 03:48 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(23-02-2014 03:41 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(23-02-2014 03:36 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I was watching a show (somewhere, honestly don't recall when, where, what or why) and they mentioned junk DNA and how they isolated that DNA and removed it or soemthing from mice and the mice were completely "normal" which I guess it confirmed the fact junk DNA is just there and has no purpose.

Then they went on to mention that blowfish have no junk DNA. I found it odd...

Is junk DNA just mutations that are meaningless? How did a blowfish end up with none?

No, Junk DNA is inactive gene's (like the gene's for gills in humans) and the genetic code is chock full of the stuff. As to the blowfish having none I find that hard to believe.

Ok that makes sense...I (kinda) knew it was something like that I was conflating the terms...(no surprise it's been forever since college).

I wish I could recall the show or whatever I'd seen it (about the blowfish)

I watch a lot documentaries on Netflix and other nature shows. Whoever was talking about it was pretty excited.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 04:18 PM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2014 04:27 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(23-02-2014 03:36 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(23-02-2014 03:14 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  No worries Smile. What is it?

I was watching a show (somewhere, honestly don't recall when, where, what or why) and they mentioned junk DNA and how they isolated that DNA and removed it or soemthing from mice and the mice were completely "normal" which I guess it confirmed the fact junk DNA is just there and has no purpose.

Then they went on to mention that blowfish have no junk DNA. I found it odd...

Is junk DNA just mutations that are meaningless? How did a blowfish end up with none?
That’s a good question. I haven’t heard of the blowfish having no “junk” DNA. I’ll look into it and see what I can find out. Sounds interesting, whatever it actually is.

There is some disagreement on whether “junk” DNA is actually junk. Or at least whether all of it is junk. The argument is basically, some of it might serve some indirect purpose that we just don’t know yet. I haven’t really been following the details of that argument, that it does something indirectly, so I don’t know how that would even work if true.

But either way, there is definitely DNA that seems to do nothing, and a LOT of it. We are loaded with the stuff. One thing I’d add to what Revenant77x said on that is that some of the genes for gills are still used in part to form our jaws, and inner ear bones, with added mutations to make those adaptations work. But Revenant77x is as correct, there are genes that served purposes in ancestral species, like some of our gill genes, that underwent mutations that rendered them nonfunctional, by damaging the gene or by mutations that did not effect that “physical” gene directly, but prevented the expression of that gene.

For example, whales have genes for teeth, and began developing them in embryotic development, but then stop and the teeth go away. We produce three different sets of kidneys in utero, but only keep one set. The first set we develop are fish kidneys, but never function, even in the womb, and are reabsorbed during our development. So some of the genes are active at some point, but suppressed or not continued to develop, at another point, and never serves a purpose in the birthed organism, or in utero. Geese have genes for teeth, for example, and in very rare circumstances some geese are born with teeth. The gene to prevent the expression of that gene, in that case, was not present or was blocked by some other gene.

There are loads of examples like this, which we expect to find due to having previous morphology in our ancestry. That’s why some of our “junk” is there, because we have very long histories of evolution that extends far past our own species. That accounts for a lot of it. But in a number of cases they are just chance mutations, that fail to code for any protein production at all (which is all DNA does anyway, code for protein production), so if a mutation occurs that does not produce a protein, then there is no effect on the organism, other than extra DNA in the genome. Without the mutation creating new, or varied amounts, of proteins, then it has no effect on the physiology of the organism, so natural selection has no way to work on it, either positively or negatively. So unless it is randomly mutated away (in which case it would still probably just mutate into a different form of “junk” DNA), it just sits there and continues to be replicated, as long as it’s “lucky” enough to have mutated into an origins that is successful in reproducing itself.

Given time, with chance creating them, and nothing selecting against them, this “junk” non-protein coding DNA can build up over time. The more time, the more mutations can happen, and given billions of years, you can end up with a lot of it. DNA doesn’t “care” about what they “do” for the organism. Just that it reproduces.

Because of this, like Revenant77x said, I too find it highly unlikely that a blowfish would have no “junk” DNA. There would have to be a process by which it were removed, and I can’t think of what that process could possibly be, if it’s not even expressing itself in the form of changing the organism, or the cells in which the DNA resides, for it to be selected against.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
23-02-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(23-02-2014 04:18 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(23-02-2014 03:36 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I was watching a show (somewhere, honestly don't recall when, where, what or why) and they mentioned junk DNA and how they isolated that DNA and removed it or soemthing from mice and the mice were completely "normal" which I guess it confirmed the fact junk DNA is just there and has no purpose.

Then they went on to mention that blowfish have no junk DNA. I found it odd...

Is junk DNA just mutations that are meaningless? How did a blowfish end up with none?
That’s a good question. I haven’t heard of the blowfish having no “junk” DNA. I’ll look into it and see what I can find out. Sounds interesting, whatever it actually is.

There is some disagreement on whether “junk” DNA is actually junk. Or at least whether all of it is junk. The argument is basically, some of it might serve some indirect purpose that we just don’t know yet. I haven’t really been following the details of that argument, that it does something indirectly, so I don’t know how that would even work if true.

But either way, there is definitely DNA that seems to do nothing, and a LOT of it. We are loaded with the stuff. One thing I’d add to what Revenant77x said on that is that some of the genes for gills are still used in part to form our jaws, and inner ear bones, with added mutations to make those adaptations work. But Revenant77x is as correct, there are genes that served purposes in ancestral species, like some of our gill genes, that underwent mutations that rendered them nonfunctional, by damaging the gene or by mutations that did not effect that “physical” gene directly, but prevented the expression of that gene.

For example, whales have genes for teeth, and began developing them in embryotic development, but then stop and the teeth go away. We produce three different sets of kidneys in utero, but only keep one set. The first set we develop are fish kidneys, but never function, even in the womb, and are reabsorbed during our development. So some of the genes are active at some point, but suppressed or not continued to develop, at another point, and never serves a purpose in the birthed organism, or in utero. Geese have genes for teeth, for example, and in very rare circumstances some geese are born with teeth. The gene to prevent the expression of that gene, in that case, was not present or was blocked by some other gene.

There are loads of examples like this, which we expect to find due to having previous morphology in our ancestry. That’s why some of our “junk” is there, because we have very long histories of evolution that extends far past our own species. That accounts for a lot of it. But in a number of cases they are just chance mutations, that fail to code for any protein production at all (which is all DNA does anyway, code for protein production), so if a mutation occurs that does not produce a protein, then there is no effect on the organism, other than extra DNA in the genome. Without the mutation creating new, or varied amounts, of proteins, then it has no effect on the physiology of the organism, so natural selection has no way to work on it, either positively or negatively. So unless it is randomly mutated away (in which case it would still probably just mutate into a different form of “junk” DNA), it just sits there and continues to be replicated, as long as it’s “lucky” enough to have mutated into an origins that is successful in reproducing itself.

Given time, with chance creating them, and nothing selecting against them, this “junk” non-protein coding DNA can build up over time. The more time, the more mutations can happen, and given billions of years, you can end up with a lot of it. DNA doesn’t “care” about what they “do” for the organism. Just that it reproduces.

Because of this, like Revenant77x said, I too find it highly unlikely that a blowfish would have no “junk” DNA. There would have to be a process by which it were removed, and I can’t think of what that process could possibly be, if it’s not even expressing itself in the form of changing the organism, or the cells in which the DNA resides, for it to be selected against.

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it a lot. I did a rather quick search in google and found that the pufferfish (or blowfish -- guess it's kinda like calling a pill bug or roley poley Big Grin ) does have some junk DNA but no where what it was believed to have had -- or maybe what they thought it should have...I dunno. It seems some wonder if the pufferfish might have a way of just acquiring 'junk' DNA or removing genes that haven't a purpose.

I tried to read more about it, but became bored -- which I know speaks more about me than the writers. One article was penned by PZ Meyers in some science website. That article (labeled "intermediate") was way over my head. Weeping This is why even if it's interesting to me, I stop because I just end up feeling stupid.

I think I'm going to search for an article about the removing "junk" DNA from mice.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: