Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2018 January 10

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 10

Embryo segments (creationist claim)

Biological Anomalies: Humans by William R. Corliss quotes the following from a book called Flaws in the Theory of Evolution by Evan Shute (published 1961):

Homologous structures can arrive fro different segments of the body. In the newt the arm arises from segments 9 to 11, in man from 13 to 18. These "homologies" are not evidence of an ancestral relationship. They are largely accidental-- or artificial!

I can't find any discussion of this claim online, nor any explanation of the embryo segment numbers (which don't seem to be used anymore in embryology). Is this claim accurate in any way, and if so, what explains the apparent discrepancy? 169.228.152.135 (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What explains the apparent discrepency is bullshit. You can safely ignore such arguments without giving them further consideration, they are generally some combination of outright lies and cherry picking specific things (usually not-as-yet explained things) rather than anything that resembles reasonable science. The proper response to such arguments is "..." --Jayron32 11:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's not be so touchy. There may be a difference, because the location of Hox gene activity (gene expression) varies a little between tetrapods; it is also possible that the response to it is different. In sort, evolution doesn't mean things stay the same - they can make use of the underlying genetic framework to move by making little tweaks here and there. The idea of paralogs is essential to this: one gene gets duplicated many times, resulting in genes that are similar but not the same, so that changing one of them just changes a few things, or so that becoming regulated by one rather than another with a small change in the DNA doesn't cause a drastic deformity. I don't have time presently to find the specifics of where newt limbs and Hox genes are; they're not in this review but you might find it helpful for general concepts.

The war between creationism and evolutionism is futile. You don't expect the text of a book and the author's notes on the book liner to agree about how characters in it came to exist. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• This sort of thing is silly given our modern knowledge of genetics and embryology. An easy analog for non-biologists to understand is the turtle. Turtle evolution. The upper shell of the turtle is comprised of the back of the ribcage. In all other vertebrates with limbs, the limbs lie outside the ribcage, assuming the ribcage extends down as far as the hind limbs, which it often doesn't. In any case, think of your shoulderblades. They lie outside the ribs, not inside them. So God must have created the turtle especially, since its entire set of limbs lies within the ribcage. The limbs can't move through the ribcage during development, can they?

Well, the problem has been solved with clever study of embryology and the discovery of fossils which were unknown back when Jerry Fallwell was running the Moral Majority. The problem has been solved; science moves on; embryology is plastic; organisms evolve. It is human minds which sometimes do and sometimes don't catch up. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the topic was addressed more recently, and while it certainly is a matter of evolution, the lack of known transitional forms means that a classic Haeckelian "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" approach provides us with the best insight so far. Wnt (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Wnt, please look up projection (psychology). You call one editor touchy, then you "correct" (?) me by saying the issue has been addressed more recently? The time stamp I gave was Jerry Fallwell. He died in 2007, so was there actually any point in the "more recently" non-sequitur? Do us a favor, and apply your ample time and wisdom to making turtle evolution a bluelink. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You said "back when Jerry Falwelll was running the Moral Majority" -- which was disbanded in 1987, according to our article. And you miss the point that as far as I could tell from the coverage I cited, we still don't have convincing fossils to illustrate how turtles altered the relations of ribs and pectoral girdle -- instead, we have an inference (a strong one) from observation of embryological development. Wnt (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

DST and India

As far as I know India doesn't use DST, but then why did they do so during Second World War ? Jon Ascton  (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

According to Time_in_India, during the War India advanced clocks by 1 hour (war time) but it was not really DST as clocks were not adjusted twice a year. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Indian Standard Time (IST) is the time observed throughout India, with a time offset of UTC+05:30. Compared with other countries, India lies close to the Equator (Jabalpur which is close the center of the land mass is at latitude 23°N) so that sunrise times hardly vary enough to justify the complication of DST which may have been viewed as an unwanted inheritance from British colonial rule, that it discarded at independance in 1947. Burma is similar while Bangladesh and Pakistan have observed DST in some years since WW2. Notes: Kolkata and Mumbai retained their own local time (known as Calcutta Time and Bombay Time) until 1948 and 1955. Daylight Saving Time (DST) was used briefly during the China–Indian War of 1962 and the Indo–Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971. see Time in India. SdrawkcaB99 (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Two references:

References