What Really Killed the Dinosaurs?

[Ms. DNA]

(I wasn't sure if this topic should go here or in the news forum. Feel free to move it if necessary.)

According to a paleontologist from Princeton, the asteriod that fell in the Yucatan and is commonly believed to have killed the dinosaurs may not have been the chief cause of their extinction. Studies of rock formations in the area suggest that the asteriod fell about 300,000 years after the dinosaurs became extinct and that the crater is smaller than originally thought. Microfossils also suggest that the many organisms were already endangered before the asteriod fell, and the asteriod may have been the "final straw." Here's the link to the complete article:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/03/02/coolsc.dinosaurs.extinction/index.html (http://)

[Atlantic]

I made a very educated (based on facts) hypothesis that humans killed them

BTW they dated a live penguin (carbon dating) 40k years old. I wouldn't rely on those dates.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You made a hypothesis that humans killed them, when humans didn't exist them?
Perhaps the food the penguin ate was 40k years old.

[kenel]

Do you know why the dinosaurs died? Because you touch yourself at night.

:flame: BURN!

[Sayonara³]

Atlantic said in post # (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=41547#post41547):
I made a very educated (based on facts) hypothesis that humans killed them

BTW they dated a live penguin (carbon dating) 40k years old. I wouldn't rely on those dates.
Who are "they"?

[Atlantic]

people who proved carbon dating ineffective.

btw, how do you know humans weren't around back then? were you there to see no humans?

[Sayonara³]

Atlantic said in post # (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=41564#post41564):
people who proved carbon dating ineffective.
Who are these "people"?

[Sayonara³]

Actually I could just save you some time, and refer you to these religious folks who'd like to debunk the penguin claim for me:

http://www.christianforums.com/t91370

[mooeypoo]

Damnit, Sayonara you stole my post. I was about to post the same :P

By the way, SLIGHTLY off topic but not entirely - I heard there's a better way of dating than carbon dating (not because carbon dating is wrong, but there's just a more accurate way) anyone heard about it maybe?

AND Atlantic, how did you REACH that "very educated" hypothesis and which facts exactly did you use? Mind giving us a little info? I'm curious.

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Atlantic said in post # (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=41564#post41564):
btw, how do you know humans weren't around back then? were you there to see no humans?
No. Fossil evidence of the earliest human found is later than the newest dinosaur found. So unless that changes, there were no humans there.
You don't seem to trust anything we say.

[-Demosthenes-]

What do you classify as a dinosuar?

[mooeypoo]

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/index.html
and-
http://www.jpinstitute.com/dinopedia/index.jsp

I could give more, but the same definition of a dinosaur is relatively accepted by all scientists, so a simple google search would give you much more results.

~moo

[JaKiri]

Carbon dating is useless for long time differences anyway.

Furthermore, it only works on earth, and has several assumptions.

It's that kind of reason that makes me wince in Babylon 5 - Thirdspace, when they find something floating in hyperspace and carbon date it to several million years old.

[mooeypoo]

Ahh, Thanks :)

so wait, is there another dating way science uses today instead?

[Sayonara³]

I like it when the only scientist in the film decides to carbon date a brick.

[atinymonkey]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=41589#post41589):

No. Fossil evidence of the earliest human found is later than the newest dinosaur found. So unless that changes, there were no humans there.
You don't seem to trust anything we say.

Well, dinosaurs still existed past the point of the last fossil records. That voids your point somewhat. The term 'extinction of the dinosaurs' is not really true, they did not all just die out. It's a quick and dirty term for the end of the dinosaurs era as the dominant species and the rise of mammals.

If that's your only argument, Atlantic is still presenting the most logical point of view.

I presume your not a paleontologist, hence the lack of trust.

[Pinch Paxton]

Maybe their gene pool became heriditarally weaker over 16 million years? Humans are some day going to loose their blonde hair because brown hair is more dominant. Maybe this is like a countdown to extinction in a long run of time. First we loose blonde hair, then what? What happens when you are a huge population of similar genes? Could this have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?

Pincho.

[Sayonara³]

No. Oh god, on so many levels NO.

You don't understand what dominance is at all.

[Pinch Paxton]

Pardon? are you disagreeing with the blonde hair thing?

[Sayonara³]

If you like, yeah. If that's the bit of reply #17 you want to focus on, it really won't make much difference to me.

[Pinch Paxton]

Ok read this........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2284783.stm

[Sayonara³]

Here's a better idea: why don't you read it?

[Pinch Paxton]

Look I suppose you are saying that my interpretation is wrong, but you are too argumentative to notice that the conclusion is the same whatever meaning you decide to take. Dinosaurs could have had a recessive gene, a dominant gene to extinction, a preference for dark skin, all the same result. Maybe you should try adding to my posts rather that immediately debunking them.

Pincho.

[Sayonara³]

Yes, your interpretation is wrong.

And seeing as the article concludes blonde numbers will fall but blondes will not become "extinct", the conclusions are not the same.

And even if the conclusions were the same, the one you are comparing it with is still wrong, because a trend in the prevalence of a single dominant gene isn't going to wipe out hundreds and hundreds of species, all at the same time.

Search for related articles, and you'll find how transient the whole blonde thing is. Also try looking at some actual science journals, instead of the pop-sci alarmist interpretations trotted across the media.

[Pinch Paxton]

Last week it was science that said it was a meteor. I actually already had my gene idea. I was ahead of science at that point, because my idea has not yet been totally prooved wrong, only by you, and I would expect that on here anyway.

[Pinch Paxton]

Also you say hundred, and hundreds of species, but I am relating my idea to a time that genes become too similar to continue a species. This time period would be a mathematical formula that would extinguish many species who had lived for a similar number of generations.

[Sayonara³]

IT'S NOT UP TO US TO PROVE YOU WRONG - IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE YOU RIGHT, AND SO FAR YOU ARE NOT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE OR ACTUAL LOGIC.

'scuse caps. Been working with capslock on and I'm not typing all that again.

You might want to do more reading on this, seeing as the scientists behind the challenge to the asteroid extinction theory said that "one impact is too simple [referring to a specific event]... two or more impacts caused the extinction".

I'm not sure what you mean by "ahead of science" - that's something of a contradiction in terms.

[Pinch Paxton]

So science provided the evidence that a meteor killed the dinosaurs? Actually my evidence in this case is quite simple. All you have to do is calculate the number of dinosaurs that reach maturity and breed from a single set of parents. Then you need to calculate how many of these would pass on an heriditary gene that is dormant until it is passed on to a female carrying another heriditary gene that combines with the male's gene. These two genes together causing child defect. Then it would be possible to calculate if there would be a substantial dormant period, allowing both male, and female to breed dormancy to extinction. I don't need to prove any of this, it's all hypothetical. I believe that the thread was meant to be hypothetical in its nature anyway.

What really killed the dinosaurs? sounds hypothetical to me. I'm fed up of the bad attitude that is generated on this site from any sort of comment that is not already known about.

Pincho.

[mooeypoo]

I actually tend to agree with you, pinch, that the dinosaurs weren't necessarily extinct by meteor, and it might ahve been genetical I just don't agree on the way you present the things.. I admit my knowledge in biology and genes is quite limited but from what I *do* know, it's not that simple to just calculate things like that...

I agree though - the theory that dinosaurs were extinct by a meteor is not entirely proven, its an educated assumption and should be treated as such.

~moo

[Sayonara³]

That's not evidence - that's you misunderstanding genetics.

If that's your theory you are going to have to also explain things like the fact that sharks and crocodiles outlasted the dinosaurs by millions of years, and why life persists at all, because your hypothesis has to take related obervable effects into account.

[Sayonara³]

mooeypoo said in post # (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=41760#post41760):
I agree though - the theory that dinosaurs were extinct by a meteor is not entirely proven, its an educated assumption and should be treated as such.
While this is true (kind of) it would definitely help Pinch if he were to start of by researching what is already known (IE - not assumed or guessed) before he starts coming up with theories. It would really help.

[mooeypoo]

I completely agree.

My point was that it's only a theory, though. But of course - in order to find flaws or find a "better" theory, you need to know what already exists. Of course.

that's why I'm reading Hawkings book now finally :P
Sorting myself before I can start understanding tyhat string theory I heard about ...

:P

~moo

[Pinch Paxton]

If that's your theory you are going to have to also explain things like the fact that sharks and crocodiles outlasted the dinosaurs by millions of years

Hypothetically, I was thinking that the child defects from the parents carrying the bad genes cause a mutation that was allowed to continue the species. The mutation from T-rex could have bread with, and led to crocodiles, and alligators, very quickly compared to normal evolution. I expect this transition from T-rex to crocodile to actuall improve the crocodile gene pool, and continue the species for many more years. But again, I expect someone to use bad manners.

Pincho.

[mooeypoo]

Oii Oiii...
Crocodiles (though a bit different in size) were existing in the jurassic era, along with the dinosaurs. So did whales, btw. They weren't "developed from dinos" they WERE in the DINO's era.

Check your info. That part actually supports Sayonara's side in the debate...


~moo

[Sayonara³]

Pinch Paxton said in post # (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=41767#post41767):
Hypothetically, I was thinking that the child defects from the parents carrying the bad genes cause a mutation that was allowed to continue the species. The mutation from T-rex could have bread with, and led to crocodiles, and alligators, very quickly compared to normal evolution. I expect this transition from T-rex to crocodile to actuall improve the crocodile gene pool, and continue the specis for many more years. But again, I expect someone to use bad manners.

Pincho.
Having studied this sort of thing in great depth, and at great expense, and having put it a damned large amount of effort and time to earn my degree, and having gone out of my way to review the background information that consideration of your theory needs despite my fears that it's a house of cards, and considering your obvious lack of knowledge in the area of basic Mendelian genetics, your unwillingness to apply simple scientific methods, and the fact that you can't even be bothered to glance at an evolutionary chart of the animalia, I find the accusation "I don't have to prove it, you just have a bad attitude" to be really quite offensive.

That should give you some perspective on why your theories aren't being terribly well-received.

[Pinch Paxton]

No I meant that they breed with existing crocodiles because T-rex became smaller and more awkward. This then increased the croc gene pool. I knew already that crocs existed then. I beleive that they were a bit larger, but I may be wrong on that. Do I really have to check the sizes of them as well?

[atinymonkey]

Crocs predate dinosaurs, actually. But I think it's just an example.

[Sayonara³]

mooeypoo said in post # (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=41775#post41775):
Crocodiles (though a bit different in size) were existing in the jurassic era, along with the dinosaurs. So did whales, btw. They weren't "developed from dinos" they WERE in the DINO's era.

Check your info. That part actually supports Sayonara's side in the debate...
This is true. Same for sharks iirc.

That's why I chose them you see, to demonstrate that it's easy enough to come up with a new theory as to why X happens, but it also needs to explain Y and Z if it is supposed to supercede theory A which currently explains them all.

Fun eh?

[mooeypoo]

Actually, it is :P

And Pinch -- how do you base your assumption of cross breeding between T-Rex and Crocs (even if it was physically possible, and of course - THAT SIMPLE genewise)...

~moo

[Pinch Paxton]

Mutations would allow some cross breeding, because a large number of mutations would allow for a large number of possibilities, and results.

[Sayonara³]

Just "no", OK?

[Gampin]

too many carbs

[mooeypoo]

Genes and mutations and cross breading doesn't work like that, pinch.
If it did, you could have had Dogmen and Birdcows.
They could be very useful.


~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Gampin said in post # (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=41865#post41865):
too many carbs
Whatever.
Dogmen? Have you seen Spaceballs? It's "Mog."
Crossbreeding would lead to some very weird things.

[Pinch Paxton]

Mankind isn't at the end of its gene pool though. Imagine two species like T-Rex, and crocodiles both coming to the end of their gene pools. T-rex reduces in size and becomes weaker, his forearms shrink, and if he falls he has a problem getting up again. So T-rex moves into water, where he feels more stable. Crocs are in the water, maybe larger than normal crocs of today. T-rex mates, and the water contains T-rex genes. Crocs mate, and the water contains croc genes. Somehow this swamp of mixed genes contaminates both species, and the two become intertwined after a few years. That's why all of the T-rex that we find have these small forearms, we are finding the more recent mutated T-rex, rather than an older perfect version, which may have looked very different. We might even confuse older T-rex with a different species of dinosaur. This is still theoretical.

Pincho.

[atinymonkey]

It's not theoretical. That's not a theory. You see, there has to be something (evidence etc) to substanciate a theory.

[Pinch Paxton]

Like a giant meteor you mean? Or a giant crator? Then I would have a great theory huh?

[mooeypoo]

Also, with our "cracking of the genom" knowledge and our advanced technology we are DESPERATELY (whether its ethical or not is for another interresting debate) trying to CREATE those breedings, and constantly failing.

Those things are not working through "breeding" of two species. Even when we tried to crossbreed QUITE similar animals (like mammals from the cats family - lions and tigers, for instance) it didn't really work.

Crossbreeding with DIFFERENT SPECIES doesnt work in nature. For this to be a valid theory it needs more than just empty speculations.

And yu're right, Cap'n. This is one of my favourite movies, I am ashamed for the mistake. Mogs, and (what was it? DAAAAAMN I need to see that movie again!!!!!!I'm senile!!! aaaa!!) Pizzaman? Mr. Pizza? err.. well you know what I mean. I just embarassed myself even more. I go dwell in my self pity and rent that movie again.


~moo

[mooeypoo]

Also, Pinch, you don't seem to get the point of valid theories.

The "giant meteor" is an accepted theory (although it has many many holes) because it has SUBSTANTIAL evidence, even if they're mostly circumstantial. There's the crater, there's the logic behind "ICE AGE" -- a huge impact on earth would have created a layer of dust in the atmosphere which could have caused such an Ice Age, the depth and size of the crater near Mexico fits the estimations of an impact and so on.

The theory doesn't need to be flawless to be accepted (HELL, It's a THEORY) - it needs to be LOGICAL.

Support your theory on logic, we might accept it.

~moo

[Pinch Paxton]

I've seen Ligers already, they are easy to breed. So are some other cross breeding animals. Zebras and horses are easy. T-rex, and crocs are very similar. Actually I think that lizards are easier than mammals to cross breed.

[mooeypoo]

They're not similar. T-Rex is a land creature, Crocs are "both water and land" (dont remember the english word, sorry), they have HUGE physiological and physical and biological and GENETICAL differences, not to mention the sheer fact that PHYSICALLY the act of MATING would not only be virtually impossible, but plainly PAINFUL physically. And it's not something you can do with "oops, a t-rex sperm accidently entered the croc's egg" --- it doesn't WORK like that.

Unless there was some devine (or extra terrestrial???) intervention here, which I must say both options sound rediculous - that is just not possible.

~moo

[Pinch Paxton]

I think I have presented as much evidence as the crator, and the dust cloud, and the Ice Age.

Crator = Swamp full of crocs, and T-rex.
Dust cloud = Gene cloud in water.
Ice Age = Dormant Gene pool.

[mooeypoo]

Egh. I give up.

[Pinch Paxton]

Also female hormones are combining with male hormones in our drinking water. Males are becoming more female. This is the same as T-rex drinking from the croc water, and the crocs also drinking the same water.

[Pinch Paxton]

Those things are not working through "breeding" of two species. Even when we tried to crossbreed QUITE similar animals (like mammals from the cats family - lions and tigers, for instance) it didn't really work.

And you tell me to get my facts right, but Lions, and Tigers can breed naturally without any help from mankind. It's just that they live in different countries.

Pincho.

[mooeypoo]

They CAN"T breed naturally without help from mankind.

Besides, do you even see what you're saying here? Lions and Tigers (Fairly similar [physically at least]) against T=REX and CROCS.

Sheesh, man.

Other than that -- your logical system is FLAWED.

THIS:
Crator = Swamp full of crocs, and T-rex.
Dust cloud = Gene cloud in water.
Ice Age = Dormant Gene pool.
IS NOT LOGIC.


Why? take a look at this Logic system:

Asteroid travelling in high speed in Space near Earth
........................... :nabla:

Asteroid being "pulled" (or twisted or however you call it) towards earth by its gravitational force (or wave, or glitch in time-space)

........................... :nabla:

Asteroid is big enough not to be fried and disapear in the Earth's atmosphere while shooting down towards the surface

........................... :nabla:

Asteroid - much smaller than before impact, and yet still substantially big - hits earth's surface

........................... :nabla:

Emmediate Cause: Crater

........................... :nabla:

Effective Cause: Huge dust cloud from the impact now covering the atmosphere for months (or years, depending on the impact and the asteroid's size)

........................... :nabla:

Earth's surface is not recieving enough heat, and an Ice Age is created

........................... :nabla:

Creatures that so far lived in a thrivingly HOT earth, are now freazing, and cannot fit themselves quickly enough to the new environment. Granted, some *can* but those who cannot, simply DIE from the massive change.

........................... :nabla:

Hence, the extinction of the dinosaurs.


NOW.

THIS is logic. Every effect comes with a direct result, a result thatis LOGICAL result, not made up "what if" result.

You can't tell me "No! Asteroids falling from the skies don't create craters!" because they USUALLY do.
Actually, unless its completely burnt, I don't believe there has been cases of impact WITHOUT a crater.
Those are SAFE ASSUMPTIONS. LOGICAL assumptions.

And while this theory may have flaws - as long as it is built on logic (as I've shown), it is accepted. YOUR theory, however, has no connection WHATSOEVER between cause and effect.

You just decided what your reality is. That's not logic, that's storytelling.


~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

mooeypoo said in post # (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=41900#post41900):

And yu're right, Cap'n. This is one of my favourite movies, I am ashamed for the mistake. Mogs, and (what was it? DAAAAAMN I need to see that movie again!!!!!!I'm senile!!! aaaa!!) Pizzaman? Mr. Pizza? err.. well you know what I mean. I just embarassed myself even more. I go dwell in my self pity and rent that movie again.
~moo
Pizza the Hut.
And the theory of genes in the water, no. How can they get into the animal AND get into the chromosomes of the child?

[mooeypoo]

the problem is less the suggestions - it's more the logic.
Try using more logic in your theoretical assumptions, pinch. We might even understand wat you want.

[Pinch Paxton]

You call that asteroid list logic because it contains no science at all. I can't strip the science away from a gene theory, it is more complex. I am writing a computer program at the moment to see what would happen if 2 people in 100000 had faulty genes. Then pass the genes on to their children as dormant. I am interested to find out what happens when the population reaches 20000000. Will the gene pool start to become higher risk, or lower?

Pincho.

[mooeypoo]

It doesn't contain science?...

If you call science a bunch of storytelling-non-logic babble, then yah. It's not science.

What you're saying is NOT logical because you CANNOT expect what happens to genes. You can have a "dormant" gene for decades, or for 2 generations. You don't KNOW what would happen to it because it's too complex, it contains generations fo generations of knowledge.

How 'bout you stop talking about science and start talking about LOGIC.

I can't keep answering you because you're not LISTENING.
you're not even TRYING to understand, man. And I have tried desperately to understand your logic, your theories, ANYTHING. You're not giving me a chance because you're not listening to me.
Ifind myself repeating the same thing over and voer and over again because you plainly don't listen, or don't care.

You throw EMPTY non SCIENTIFIC acusations. Don't believe me? You don't have to. Ask any scientific-thinking person. You know what? Ask anyone what LOGIC is.
Read books about the meaning of axiom, logic, and listening while debating.

This is really frustrating, and quite frankly, I'd spend all my time debating new ideas and new theories - but debating with someone who just don't listen, and whenever he gets a "tough question" he makes up his own reality without even counting on facts - is a waste of my time.

Talk logic, I'll listen and debate.

Otherwise - good luck. You haven't convinced me.

~moo

[Pinch Paxton]

Male carries rare, dormant disease
...........................

Female carries matching gene causing mutated childbirth
...........................

Dormant Male breeds with none gene carrying female, male child carries dormant gene.

Dormant female breeds with none gene carrying male, female child carries dormant gene.
...........................

Population growth increases risk of carrying child mutation, when a couple both carrying genes mate.

...........................

16 million years later, whole population carry mutant genes.
...........................

Breeding now causes mutation each time.
...........................

Mutated T-Rex has smaller arms. Cannot fall, else starves.
...........................

T-Rex moves into water, where he cannot fall over.
...........................

A large breed of Crocs already live in water, their gene pool is also starting to weaken.

T-rex mates with female T-rex in water. mutated Genes are passed into water.

Croc mates with female croc in water, some mutated genes are passed into water.

T-rex drinks water containing croc mutated genes.

Croc digests water containing mutated T-rex genes.

Croc eggs contain a mutation, with some elements of T-rex.

T-rex eggs contain a mutation with some elements of croc.

Adventually the two mutations are able to breed, and produce a smaller croc with a new gene pool which is safe.

New small Crocs continue to survive, but T-rex, and larger croc become extinct.

Is that simple enough?

[mooeypoo]

No, if that rare gene is not fit to society it would vanish through the evolutionary system.

And if the breeding DOES end up with mutations and those mutations DO NOT change, it means that those mutations are "meant to be" by evolution - therefore they're not really mutations but a result of evolution (because otherwise they would not survive natural selection to GET to the point the entire population has those genes).

That's the point of evolution.

And don't patronize me. I didn't ask for simple I asked for logic. That STARTS looking like one, although your logic system is still flawed, because you're missing some very important variables:
1. Such as what I have mentioned with evolution

2. the fact that if within a period of million years both Crocs and T-Rexes (which both lived less than millions of years but we'll leave that asside) will have the ability to reproduce cross-species, then they will no longer seriously *be* cross-species.

3. Oh. Yeah... you don't get genes by drinking water, dude. It just doesn't work like that.

4. Saying "Mutated T-Rex has smaller arms" is fallable. Listen, mutation that will not fit environments will PERISH. DIE. Will NOT move on.

You're treating mutations as if they're entire-species, while they're - by definition - a small precentage of the population.

Dude, that's the entire POINT of evolution. That's why we *dont* have shut mouths. Those who are born with serious mutations *do not survive* natural selection and don't PASS their mutations onwards.

When we talk about evolution we're not talking about mutations we're talking about SLOW PROCESS OF CHANGE.
It's thousands of changes that only some last, else just disappear out of lack of need.

It's a start, but it's not logic.
I would suggest you read a few books about evolution and genes before you throw such powerful thesis into the air that fits NO SORT OF LOGIC in physics, or biology, or genom, or ... well anything.


~moo

[MishMish]

Mooey:

"Crocodiles (though a bit different in size) were existing in the jurassic era, along with the dinosaurs. So did whales, btw."

Do you have a source for that bit about the whales, seems just a bit off to me

[Skye]

Pincho, population growth, with a variable number of offspring per individual, would result in a stochastic distribution of gene frequencies (the mean being equal to the original gene frequency) with a standard deviation that's proportional to the variability of the number of offspring, right?

[Pinch Paxton]

Yeah I've been reading up on it. Each human at the moment carries 5 faulty genes. There are 4000 possible illnesses from faulty genes. If both parents are carriers then 25% children will be diseased, 50% will be carriers, 25% will be normal. If 1 parent is carrier the 25% children will be carrier. I shall put this into my computer, and watch what happens over generations.

I also found out that Alligators have gone through changes with resulted sterilisation due to chemicals found in water from pesticides. Now I know that pesticides aren't the same as T-rex genes, but I am thinking now of T-rex hormones from urine etc, and also that perhaps T-rex received hormonal changes from crocs. Amphibians are very perceptible to changes in their water, frogs also require quite a pure type of water.

Pincho.

[Pinch Paxton]

Actually a quick think about it....

5 faulty genes per human
25% passed on as carriers

That's actually a gain in carriers!

There are some 50% diseases as well, because of dominant disorders. 2 Children = 1 diseased on average. That's from just one parent.

On top of that, you can aquire a mutation from none of the parents, but from your environment. You can also then pass this mutation on to your children!!!

What do you think?

http://www.dnapolicy.org/genetics/geneticsAndDisease.jhtml

[Skye]

No, the number of carriers decreases and the number of diseased and normal increases.

The parents are both carriers. Therefore 100% of the first population are carriers. If 50% of their offspring are carriers then obviously the number of carriers decreases. And as there are now 25% of both diseased and normal individuals, where before there were none, these have increased.

Look up Punnet squares, these are a better way to understand it, especially as it becomes more complicated.

[Sayonara³]

How can you not realise that if it worked like this everything we know about evolution and all of our actual observations of the world right now would be wrong?

Before you try and model genetic progression, maybe you should learn how it actually works.

[Pinch Paxton]

It does get complicated. That's why I want to run it in my computer. I suppose that any gene can become mutated due to an aquired mutation. How many genes do we actually have? I need all the accurate figures.

5 mutant genes per person.
4000 possible illnesses.
sometimes 25% passed on as carriers.
sometimes 50% passed on as carriers from the father alone. (huntington Disease) and it's always the male that gets it.
All this I have to get accurate.

[Pinch Paxton]

What I'm thinking is that if the number decreases then why do we all carry 5 mutant genes after such a long span of the human race? I am just hypothesising anyway. Skye are you taking 2.4 children into consideration? Also, how many eggs do crocodiles lay that reach breeding stage, and same with T-rex, and other dinosaurs.

[atinymonkey]

Pinch, your theory is ok upto the magic gene water. That's the bit that make no sense. A crock and a dinosaur cannot cross breed, it's the equivilent of a crock and a toad or a fish and a dolphin. We can see, observe, test, map the genome and prove that it is impossible.

But, the regressive gene theory might hold some water if you look at it from a different angle. There was a change in climate, and a regressive gene may have prevented any useful biological evolution from occuring in the period it was required.

[Pinch Paxton]

Yeah I noticed that no gene mutation occurs through water, or has not been discovered, but I should really have said hormone transferance, because I was basing my theory on hormones passed through water from the female birth contreceptive. So maybe I lost my way a little bit during my explenation.

[Sayonara³]

Right - I need to get this straight. Is this a fairly accurate summary of your theory...?

The asteroid craters and evidence of the following geological and meterological events, and the evidence of changes in the plant ecology of the planet, are coincidental and did not lead directly to the end of the age of dinosaurs.

It is more likely that the dinosaurs were wiped out by the cumulative effects of recessive-gene diseases, which eventually propogated to every individual of every species, reducing offspring numbers over a period of time.

A suggested mechanism is the aqueous transfer of hormones between (EG) crocodilia and (EG) Tyranosaurus rex, resulting in majority offspring of both being hybrids (let's call them Tyranodiles) with the genetic defects of both species.

[Pinch Paxton]

It is more likely that the dinosaurs were wiped out by the cumulative effects of recessive-gene diseases, which eventually propogated to every individual of every species, reducing offspring numbers over a period of time.

I say that mathematically, all species including ourselves, have an increasing probability of getting two matching gene mutations due to a slow increase in gene mutation over time. In other words, all genes in one species are slowly starting to match up.

A suggested mechanism is the aqueous transfer of hormones between (EG) crocodilia and (EG) Tyranosaurus rex, resulting in majority offspring of both being hybrids (let's call them Tyranodiles) with the genetic defects of both species.

This sounds accurate, apart from including that there would be hybrid Tyranodiles, and hybrid Crocasaurus. Each with half gene pool of each making a totally fresh gene pool. When Crocosaurus, and tyranodiles mate you get todays crocodiles, smaller than the original versions of that day.

Pincho.

[Sayonara³]

What's the difference between a Tyranodile and a Crocosaurus?

[Pinch Paxton]

The opposite halves of the gene pool. With Tigers, and Lions you get Ligers, and Tions. Tions have a mane! Or is it Tigons?

Tygons and Ligers ...found that.

[Sayonara³]

And then a Tyranodile and a Crocosaurus mate to produce a Crocodile (or close ancestor of, anyway)?

[Pinch Paxton]

Yeah, I think it actually takes about 11 generations to get 100%, or 3 generations to get 90% crocodile.

Zebras can also mate with donkeys, and you get a Zonkey. It's another natural mating.

[mooeypoo]

Zonkeys!?


okay.

Many replies were added since i was here the last time and I have lots to say but I need to read them all properly first... I just... wanted to make sure I read "Zonkeys" right.

O.O

I'd love to get information of cross breeding in NATURE, pinch. I didn't know those things existed in nature.. but I believe you. Can you give me any info? a website? anything?


~moo

[Pinch Paxton]

Big things ...Ligers!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/images/223liger.jpg

http://www.stripeymaney.com/ligers/

http://members.aol.com/jshartwell/hybrid-mammals.html

http://www.thewgalchannel.com/news/923817/detail.html

[Sayonara³]

They do, it's just that they're the result of 1-in-a-trillion type mating events.

Maybe if every tiger mated only with lions, and so on, you'd end up with a small population of survivable ligers and tigons, but few of those would be capable of reproducing. It's also assuming that no lion-lion or tiger-tiger matings occur any more, which is one hell of an assumption.

Here's a captive liger: http://www.sierrasafarizoo.com/animals/liger.htm

You'll notice the info about non-sterile mules - search on this site for a story about one mating successfully.