SeunH's Posts
Nairaland Forum › SeunH's Profile › SeunH's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 (of 39 pages)
tym92:You're right sir, it has no significant effect on local dogs |
TheSourcerer:Let 100 generations put their fingers in a key hole, if there is no change in the genetic make up of such individuals, there would be no trait to pass to the next generation hence no evolution |
TheSourcerer:But sir, you won't be able to pass the trait to the next generation. That adaptation would die with you because it's not genetic hence evolution would not occur |
Mrlola:I'm sorry sir, please can I get a snap shot of the injury site so that I can guide you better |
tym92:Exactly sir |
tym92:Thanks so much for enjoying this thread sir, it's not by my might sir, it's by God's grace coupled with the cooperation and words of encouragement by the readers. Thanks once again sir |
Adexxi:Okay, go to any Vet shop or Vet pharmacy, it's readily available. Meanwhile get vitamin C seperately. It would help boost appetite and immunity, let's watch the feeding pattern |
Adexxi:Is she on any multivitamin supplement? |
SeyiJayden:Good evening sir, I'm so sorry sir, please which other symptoms are you observing and when did you start noticing it |
sinkhole:Actually sir, the Qur'anic version is quite different from the Biblical version and the above version. While the later states that the world was destroyed by the flood, the Qur'an on the other hand explicitly states that "it is the people of Nuh, that was destroyed by the flood". Although, it's understandable for such errors because people at that time might have felt it was the whole world based on how they may have perceived the world, remember no planes etc |
akpota:I'm so sorry for being away for so long. I've been caught up with a lot of things. How far with the mange? did the solution above work? Please update me on any development |
manontree:Best comment so far |
Workch:The origin of man is not a mystery, we evolved from prehistoric apes just as other organisms evolved from other animals. The evidence is overwhelming Huamns are not just apes, humans are animals. A little effort to observe a human cell under the microscope and analyze our metabolism bears all the hallmark of an animal by classification. Futher analysis to anatomical features puts us in mammalian and ape categories. We cannot say otherwise because we don't like how it sounds. Sincerely sir, you argue like a religious person (someone whose mind is already made up and is blinded by faith) You said humans are a type of Ape that evolved from a parent stock of Ape like creatures, is a statement of fact, I defined what a scientific fact is and asked you to correlate the above statement in line with the definition I gave, rather you are telling me human are animals based on metabolic analysis you told me this because you don't understand speciation after several attempts to explain it to you. You keep hanging on the word speciation as if it's rocket science. I tried to explain it layman's term, you said I didn't understand it and that's the only thing you've been hanging on. Now let me say it in pigin English. Finches na type of bird, Galapagos finches na type of finch, tell us how new type of bird take evolve, and stop playing with words it is, evolution is the only reasonable explanation for that unless you want to insert magic into it. So because I saw bones of different species with similar shapes and sizes within a specific geological period, voila!!! Evolution has been proven despite alternative evidence I gave, which I doubt you understood due to preconceived thoughts. As I said earlier sir, you argue religiously with faith no sir, you don't understand speciation. You didn't learn that part properly in school. I have biochemist friends who don't understand evolution like you do. So being an anatomist is not a guarantee that you know evolution. You at still struggling to understand speciation. You want a bacteria to be me a dog before you call it speciation. Straw man's fallacy, infact you seem to be the one confused about speciation, that's why you contradicted yourself in your last post. Now let's agree to disagree that I do understand speciation. Now I ask, please explain in layman's terms how a new organism (capable of interbreeding with each other but not with parent stock) can originate via evolution? simple!!! read about it first. You can learn if you are allergic to reading. Arguing cannot make you Learn, you have to get information from credible sources and you can only do that by reading. So go read what I posted. It doesn't hurt My dear senior, let me burst your bubble, those creatures you listed above were fully formed with functional systems, well adapted to their environment, capable of independent existence without any evidence of disability in your supposed "course of transition to another specie" mentioned where I said mutations leads to new individuals. That's not science This statement you made made me doubt if you understand the theory of evolution at all. So if mutation does not give rise to genetic diversity, how will natural selection isolate well adapted genes to "drive evolution". I guess you typed that out of impulse to reply and I'll assume I didn't see that. You are the person who doesn't understand evolution. You have sciolistic view on it and you dont understand the mechanism obviously and most of all you are not willing to listen. You do not understand taxonomy as well why you cannot differentate a species from a family. You inferred that finch becomes another species of finch is not soeciation because you lack the basic understanding that finch is a common name for a specific family of bird and not a species. I think the above statement should be redirected to you sir as proven above, you don't seem to understand the theory of evolution that why you are hanging on speciation as if it's the only thing I wrote. If you understood evolution, you wouldn't doubted me when I told you that, mutation is going to be one of the drivers if evolution is "to supposedly lead to new individuals" You are the same person who doesn't understand that rat is not a species but a family of animals with various species. Even after so many attempt to explain to you, you either didn't read my post or you don't understand. Finch is not a species, saying that finches are still finches even when they are different species hence not speciation is not scientific. You can read up on that. same same, straw man's fallacy. And yes the origin of human is not a mystery, it's well documented that we evolved from prehistoric apes. THEN REPEAT IT UNDER A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT AND LET THIS ARGUMENT DIE A NATURAL DEATH Sincerely sir I'm getting bored, you are not used to be challenged when you attempt to bamboozle people with scientific theories you don't really have a firm grasp at. For the record I believe in evolution as a scientist. But evolution capable of bringing about new individuals like rats (your favorite specie !!! ), humans, insects etc is a joke taken too far and it requires faith, just as you are exhibiting |
akpota:Don't worry sir, use the above and keep me updated |
Workch:"Humans are apes, we didn't just evolve from apes, we are apes. That's not a claim, it's a fact" You are a scientist and I believe you understand the meaning of "fact". But in case you have forgotten let me assist you sir, " A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly, verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means and is accepted as true". Now with all sincerity devoid of any preconceived thought, can the above be said about evolution of man from Apes as a fact. Be truthful to yourself, you have nothing to lose sir. "nope, we have evidence in galapafos finches that speciation is fact. We also have a lab experiment in lambda bacteriophage that proves this" And I told you sir, that these same Galapagos finches are still finches capable of interbreeding with one another hence nothing new has been formed like saying s Chihuahua evolved from a Mongrel, same for the bacteriophage sir "yes they are, do you want to explain why the fossil records are so consistent with radiometric saying and geological timelins and with the time the first modern human fossil has been recorded outside of the fact that we transitioned from them?" That they are consistent within the geographical timeline, is not a slam dunk evidence that evolution occured, when even fossil record itself isn't a conclusive proof of evolution because everyday new fossils are been discovered. It should interest you sir, that even these so called radiometric dating is still a source of debate among scientist on its accuracy. So sir, you are building your argument on a shaky foundation "you being an anatomist doesn't make any difference here. You have genuinely shown that you don't understand the concept of speciation and claissification in biology. I also have a degree in biochemistry, masters in clinical biochemistry and a foreign certification in virology and evolutionary biology, it still doesn't make any sense if I do not understand the topic very well" Being an Anatomist goes a long way sir, I'll tell you why. All what you know about paleantology, fossil records and comparative anatomy (comparison of skull of various species) etc is probably via Google or maybe you read it somewhere, you were not taught. And also sir, if an Anatomist does not declare a skull a human skull, even in the court of law, it stands no matter what the fossil records say. So I think to a reasonable aspect I have a say on this issue. It's like me arguing Miller's experiment with you, won't I look stupid. NB, you saying I don't understand the concept of speciation is laughable, then how was I able to survive in both Med and Vet school (Taxonomy and Biological classification is an important aspect of parasitology). You choose to play with words although you understood what I was implying. "Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, Pakicetids, Ambulocetus read about them" As I said sir, we shouldn't just Google answers, we should understand what we are googling, All the above creatures you wrote, were there fully formed or party formed, which was what I asked. Also we have had intermediate fossils which were later found to be distinct creatures, with due respect sir, go back to google. "No I said mutation can give rise to variation and genetic drift. I don't know where you brought individual into it, only reproduction can gives rise to new individuals" With due respect sir, we are matured people and you understand what I mean, let's not play with words. Can genetic mutation give rise via reproduction of course to an entirely distinct individual different from the parent stock capable of interbreeding amongst themselves but not with parent stock. "this is not evolution, you are thinking about magic" You're joking right? or you're just saying this for the sake of argument? "I didn't say evolution occurred randomly, you made that up because evolution is not random. It's driven by natural selection" Tell me this is a joke. With due respect sir, I'm beginning to doubt if you really understand what evolution is about or you're just googling and pasting answers Evolution is driven by 2 mechanism, a) Genetic mutation, is it random? YES b) Natural selection, is it random? CAPITAL YES. Any random event can induce natural selection e.g war, famine, disease outbreak, environmental pollution etc. HENCE EVOLUTION IS A RANDOM EVENT "artificial process cannot escalate breeding of 50000 generations in the flies that you mentioned" Take time sir to google what I wrote. Science has gone past waiting for insects or experimental animals to reproduce conventionally till they are 50,000 generations !!!! when we have Tissue culture, Histochemistry etc "The origin of man is not a mystery, we evolved from prehistoric apes just as other organisms evolved from other animals. The evidence is overwhelming" A very religious statement lol. Then repeat it under a controlled environment nah, at least it would prevent extinction of endangered species. My learned brother, let's shed preconceived thoughts, we would see life more clearly |
Let's not deviate sir from our earlier submission, which is as summarized as follows; You claim that evolution (Genetics mutation and Natural selection) explains the emergence of entirely new individuals i.e you and I, from Apes (Parent stock), infact you further added that we are just a version of Apes I said No, that evolution (Genetic mutation and Natural selection) can not give rise to entirely new individuals, at most they can give rise to genetically distinct individuals but still related to their parent stock and can interbreed with their parents stock You said fossil records of different apes and apelike creatures are evidence of evolution of human I said No, that as an anatomist they don't point to anything and I gave instances of different dog breeds. I was like, if we were not alive and we saw their fossils we may claim they are different dog like creatures that gave rise to modern dogs not knowing they were all the same dogs of different breeds. Hence fossil records are not 100% accurate. I further added now, that if evolution that could give rise to new individuals were to be real, fossil records would also show intermediate fossils which had not yet evolved properly but died along the line. And I challenge you, to show me an intermediate fossil now, that was not yet properly formed You said genetic mutation can give rise to new individuals I said No, that most genetic mutations are harmful, at most useless and arely useful hence not capable enough to give rise to new individuals You said evolution occured randomly in nature without any supernatural intervention I said, then why can't we repeat it with our modern technology and scientific advancement You said the time is too short I said our modern technology and scientific advances can initiate and complete processes that can take millions of years in an hour of which I gave examples I finally said, the origin of man and other creatures is still a mystery, we can only hypothesize, because in science what you cannot repeat severally in a controlled environment remains in the annals of hypothesis You said NO, that our origin is not a mystery and it's confirmed by science, which is via evolution That is the summary of of discussion so far |
Workch:But sir, you were the one who called them rats!!!!, you can cross check sir |
Workch:no they cannot, a mole rat cannot mate with Norwegian rat, a whistar albino rat cannot mate with a mice. Their chromosomes do not pair. Let me lecture you a bit sir, because you're getting a little bit confused, with due respect. A mole rat and a mice are called "rats' but that is not the speciation we are talking about in this context. The speciation in question here are the black rats, brown rats, albino rats, kangaroo rats, house rats etc Take note sir, these rats are genetically distinct, different "surnames" but can mate with each other hence that is what I'm talking about. When we say dogs in this context we don't mean dingos, wolves, foxes, coyotes etc we mean GSD, Great Danes, Bull mastiffs etc. So let's stay on course sir |
Workch: |
Workch:"Look at it like this, we have different species of rats, they cannot mate with earth other, they are sill rats" My dear colleague, that is wrong sir, all species of rats (rat scientifically) can mate together to produce offspring. Infact when we come across species where mating is difficult we start reconsidering their specie "We have different species of dogs, including the painted dogs, gray wolf's and domestics dogs, they cannot mate, they are still dogs. We have different species of cats, they cannot mate, they are still cats" My dear colleague, that is also wrong sir, remember it's my field�. That they are called "dogs" doesn't indicate they are our normal domestic dogs breeds. The specie were are referring to here is domestic breeds. It's like saying lions and domestic cats are same species because they are both called cats "There's no amount of advancement that can make about 50,000 - 100,000 generations of flies possible in 50years. That's about the amount of generations you need to start seeing any effect of speciation." My boss chief, it's possible sir, kindly google the terms I sent to you sir. You'll see the possibility, and it has even been done sir. Bacteria is not a species, bacteria in taxonomy is a kingdom. So you got to still go down to phyla, classes, orders, family, genus before getting to species. Speciation deals with emergence of different species and not different genus, family or order etc. So your comment about bacteria still being bacteria is a misinterpretation of what speciation deals with. You are assuming that a bacteria has to become like amoeba in the kingdom protozoa or a dog in kingdom animalia for it to be called speciation. No that's not how it works Sir, you did read what I posted properly, I said "bacteria of the specie" Moreover, as I said earlier the specie we are talking about sir is not the taxonomical nomenclature sir, we are talking in context of evolution. We are talking about emergence of a distinct category of life with different characteristics capable of intrasexual activity within it category while incapable with it's parent stock |
Workch:"Look at it like this, we have different species of rats, they cannot mate with earth other, they are sill rats" My dear colleague, that is wrong sir, all species of rats (rat scientifically) can mate together to produce offspring. Infact when we come across species where mating is difficult we start reconsidering their specie We have different species of dogs, including the painted dogs, gray wolf's and domestics dogs, they cannot mate, they are still dogs. We have different species of cats, they cannot mate, they are still cats. My dear colleague, that is also wrong sir, remember it's my field�. That they are called "dogs" doesn't indicate they are our normal domestic dogs breeds. The specie were are referring to here is domestic breeds. It's like saying lions and domestic cats are same species because they are both called cats |
Workch:My chief, when you go through my last post, you would see that the answer to the above is plain. Firstly sir for the sake of our readers, for you to say speciation has occured as in the above claim, we need the following; 1) Has the parent stock been identified? (life or fossil) i.e the original squirrel that gave rise to the two species 2) Has genetic analysis been conducted on the two species to indicate initial similarities and subsequent genetic divergence 3) Are the two species able to mate to produce a viable offspring? If the answer is no, sir then we are dealing with the same species. Furthermore even from what you wrote sir, they are both still called "squirrels" nothing new. My brother we are both scientist and we should not swallow what human beings like me and you wrote simply because they are whites, many times these things have been shown to be wrong and reviewed. Even this 98% similarities with chimps has been reviewed severally even at a time to 92%!!!! |
Workch:My dear respected learned colleague, let me for the sake of readers explain speciation in this context. If a genetically mutated specie can still "mate" and produce offspring with each other (provided their reproductive capacity was not damaged in the mutation) we can't tentatively say speciation has occured sir. In your example above sir, Galapagos finches are still finches irrespective of their beak form or body size etc and can still mate with one another, provided they are "finches" In your number 2 point sir, advances in science and medicine has made it possible for several offspring to be created within a short period via invitro/invivo studies and tissue culture sir. On your third point sir, artificial dog breeding is not as recent as you think sir, it had been occuring since ages. GSD, Bull mastiffs, Great Danes etc are not recent breeds sir, they are as old as time immemorial. On your last point sir, those viruses and bacteria where speciation has been claimed to occur are still bacteria or viruses of the specie because they can still reproduce with each other. That's why you would see names like SARS COV 1, SARS COV 2. Inasmuch as they are genetic mutants of each other, they still retain their family name SARS COV because they are still the same specie. Your last statement has summarized all I've been saying sir. Thanks for the response |
.............This indicates that up till now, speciation still remains a mystery, how we came about, how a lion, house rat, cockroach or even housefly came about still remains a mystery. Please don't google pseudo scientific publication to back up what it's obvious because you should ask yourself, if man can induce new species, chimpanzees out closest relatives (98% genetic similarity) would have been induced to give rise to human being by shutting down the 2% difference and inducing a 2% similarity lolzzzzzz!!! but jokes apart we would have seen different specie to specie transformations to suit our needs especially in the cases of endangered species. In conclusion, let us try and be open minded when dealing with scientific issues, so that we won't fall into the trap we are trying to avoid. Thank you for your time (Note: I'm a Human Anatomist and a Veterinarian, Evolution and Genetics were compulsory courses when I was in school). Please feel free to ask or comment on my post, no man is an island of knowledge!!!! |
BUT............. If we were observant, we would realize that inasmuch as evolution occured i.e Genetic mutation and Natural selection. It didn't give rise to a new specie (speciation), they were still elephants (both tuskless and tusked), they were still human beings (both AS and AA). This now lead to scientist, trying to manually induce genetic mutation with the view of bringing about speciation (a new specie). This would help especially in preventing extinction of species and reviving extinct species. However, I'm sad to report that the result had been disastrous. Most genetic mutations were observed to be harmful (even the AS example above i.e AS×AS=SS), at best useless, rarely useful. And even when achieved could not lead to a new specie. Let me give you an example, dogs have the highest genetic diversity that we can easily relate to, but do you know that despite their diversity, a Great Dane can mate with a Chihuahua and give rise to viable offspring, why? because despite their genetic diversity (mutation), they are still dogs!!!. If we were not alive and we saw their fossils, we would have theorized that evolution leading to speciation took place by observing their bones which of course is false, because they are all dogs. Another example is the Drosophila fly, it is one of the most laboratory studied fly for genetic analysis and is one of the insects most exposed to laboratory induced genetic mutation for more than 50 years, but yet a new specie has not been able to be "laboratory"created. What does the above examples indicate............ |
Good morning my learned colleagues. This is an interesting topic I believe both parties are not doing justice to, possibly due to already preconceived beliefs about the issue, hence this beautiful educational thread has turned to almost a political thread. Firstly, for us to understand this topic, we need to understand the basic term "Evolution". Evolution in layman's terms simply means "development/change over a period of time". Secondly, we need to understand that evolution has 2 basic mechanisms which is; a) Genetic Mutation: In layman's term means change in the chemicals that makes living things who they are. b) Natural Selection: A process that isolates those changes and hypothetically transforms those living things into a new specie (speciation). Thirdly, as said above, the evidence of evolution abound in nature and I'll use two classical examples for us to understand. 1) Genotype AA and AS: Genetic Mutation changed the AA genotype to AS and life was normal, not until malaria became endemic (Natural Selection) and the AS geneotype showed more resistance to malaria hence those with AS adapted while AA could not. That is why AS genotype is common in malaria endemic environments like sub Saharan Africa. Why AA genotype is possibly still in existence is due to advances in medicine eg drugs and malaria control. That is an evidence of evolution in action 2) Tuskless elephants of Mozambique: A genetic mutation made some elephants in Mozambique tuskless and life was normal, not until the civil war (Natural Selection) where poaching was on the increase to purchase arms. After 20 years, it was observed that elephants in that country became naturally tuskless and were also given birth to tuskless elephants. Those above are evidence of evolution in action BUT.................... |
Daveayo1:My brother if you have passion for veterinary medicine go for it ooo. It's one of the underated courses in Nigeria due to the fact that most people would prefer MBBS and work in the hospital, which is a blessing in disguise because it prevented oversaturation. And with the new law assented to by the president Buhari yesterday. The future is very bright |
cornel994:Did you get Vitamin C in addition to the multivitamins? If you did and it's still worse, I'll advice you to take her to the nearest Vet clinic for thorough examination. It's possible there is an underlying problem we are missing out. I'll DM my number to you for further assistance and follow up. I'm so sorry once more sir |
sylva1:Put your mind at rest, just continue with your multivitamin supplement then you can add some calcium supplements too. I'll be on standby |
sylva1:Good morning sir, please can you go in details so that I can get the picture of what is really happening? |
cornel994:Yes sir, go for well known brands, the pharmacist would guide you. Its usually in syrup form, hence you give orally |
cornel994:Okay sir, let's place him on it. Get multivitamin syrup for pups, then supplement with vitamin C separately. The former would supply the necessary minerals your boy needs while the later would boost appetite. #Note Vit C is contained in the multivitamin syrup, but I just want additional supplement. I'll be on standby Sir |
, pls note sir , her food she ignored this morning I gave it to my local dog which he ate all
.Thanks sir