- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
02 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzOh, I never knew that.
Some parts of chromosomes are more liable to be mutated than others.
Could you perhaps elaborate on this a little, why is this?
Maybe it has something to do with the junk DNA?
As in those chromosomes with more junk DNA in it get less radiation hitting the parts used, compared to the parts of chromosomes used with less junk DNA in it.
Or am I way off?
02 Apr 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZAccording to the dictionary evolve means, dif.#2, Biol. to develop, as by a process of differentiation, to a more highly organized condition.
Evolution has no defined end point, it has no goal, it has not more sentience than Gravity or Erosion. It just is.
It has always been my understanding that if we evolved from, then we must be evolving to.
How can you say there is no end point, or at least a heading in a direction of some qualitatively superior condition?
Or maybe I didn't understand what you meant!
03 Apr 07
Originally posted by josephwYour dictionary is incorrect.
According to the dictionary evolve means, dif.#2, Biol. to develop, as by a process of differentiation, to a more highly organized condition.
It has always been my understanding that if we evolved from, then we must be evolving to.
How can you say there is no end point, or at least a heading in a direction of some qualitatively superior condition?
Or maybe I didn't understand what you meant!
Evolutionary adaptation simply works to keep species surviving. This may mean that they become more complex over time, but it could also mean the opposite, depending on what mutations and variations help that species survive in the current environment.
One often cited example is the ramped up ability to absorb oxygen in large dinosaurs. This was a great adaptation when there was a higher concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere and they evolved adaptations to really milk as much as they could out of the air - hence the enormous size, long necks and so on.
But as the environment changed rapidly (for whatever reason) this adaptation was no longer useful and many of these species died out, not having enough time to adapt.
The thing about goals and direction in evolution is that it's always easy to look back from our perspective and say yeah, this adaptation was for this, and that adaptation was for that. Hindsight is not something evolution uses.
03 Apr 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfSome parts are more highly conserved - for example, a gene necessary for life is far less likely to be mutated than a random piece of DNA. Also, there are viruses which will target things like promoter regions of DNA, increasing the liklihood of mutagenesis in that region.
Oh, I never knew that.
Could you perhaps elaborate on this a little, why is this?
Maybe it has something to do with the junk DNA?
As in those chromosomes with more junk DNA in it get less radiation hitting the parts used, compared to the parts of chromosomes used with less junk DNA in it.
Or am I way off?
Not a subject that I'm fully up on. Give me a couple of days and I'll get back to you more on this.
03 Apr 07
Originally posted by amannionFor some reason your explanation doesn't make sense to me.
Your dictionary is incorrect.
Evolutionary adaptation simply works to keep species surviving. This may mean that they become more complex over time, but it could also mean the opposite, depending on what mutations and variations help that species survive in the current environment.
One often cited example is the ramped up ability to absorb oxygen in lar ...[text shortened]... tion was for this, and that adaptation was for that. Hindsight is not something evolution uses.
If we evolved from apes to what we are now, then reason tells me that we evolved from an inferior creature to a more highly developed one.
Unless there is some flaw in my reasoning!
03 Apr 07
Originally posted by josephwWhat makes you think that apes are inferior?
For some reason your explanation doesn't make sense to me.
If we evolved from apes to what we are now, then reason tells me that we evolved from an inferior creature to a more highly developed one.
Unless there is some flaw in my reasoning!
They are doing relatively well for themselves - they have survived millions of years in their niche. Sadly, now, we seem to be killing them off.
Bacteria have lived on the planet for nearly 4 billion years - we've been here a mere couple of million. There are orders of magnitude more bacteria then us, and they live in more diverse habitats than us. There are around 3 million species of beetles, living in a diverse range of habitats. Tardigrades can survive 8 tons of pressure per square inch, can survive being dipped in liquid nitrogen and have been found living quite happily at the top of Everest - all things WE can't do with our big brains and all our technology. It's narcissism to think that WE are some sort of ultimate life form - after all, cockroaches will survive a nuclear war - even if we don't.
03 Apr 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt would be narcissistic if it were true that we are not created in the image of God.
What makes you think that apes are inferior?
They are doing relatively well for themselves - they have survived millions of years in their niche. Sadly, now, we seem to be killing them off.
Bacteria have lived on the planet for nearly 4 billion years - we've been here a mere couple of million. There are orders of magnitude more bacteria then u ...[text shortened]... f ultimate life form - after all, cockroaches will survive a nuclear war - even if we don't.
Now don't bust a nut! 😲
I would venture to say that if you took a closer, honest look at the last half of your last sentence, you may see how your line of reasoning leads one to a nilihistic view of life. :'(
Sorry, but I'm living forever!😀 I know, where's the evidence?
03 Apr 07
Originally posted by josephwI'm not sure what you're saying here. What do you mean?
It would be narcissistic if it were true that we are not created in the image of God.
Now don't bust a nut! 😲
I would venture to say that if you took a closer, honest look at the last half of your last sentence, you may see how your line of reasoning leads one to a nilihistic view of life. :'(
Sorry, but I'm living forever!😀 I know, where's the evidence?
03 Apr 07
Originally posted by josephwPersonally, I find the notion that there is some supernatural who creates an entire universe, then sees fit to make us in his image, and he cares about us a bit narcissistic.
It would be narcissistic if it were true that we are not created in the image of God.
Now don't bust a nut! 😲
I would venture to say that if you took a closer, honest look at the last half of your last sentence, you may see how your line of reasoning leads one to a nilihistic view of life. :'(
Sorry, but I'm living forever!😀 I know, where's the evidence?
I also find it strange that we have a whole heap of evidence for evolution, and absolutely none for creationism, yet people still believe that God created the world in 6 days for our benefit.
That's the problem with logic - you tend to get confused a fair bit by illogical people.
03 Apr 07
Originally posted by josephwGravity causes a ball to fall to the ground. That is not the aim of gravity, nor is it the endpoint of gravity, the Earth "falls" towards the Sun, the Sun falls towards other stars and so on. It's just gravity.
According to the dictionary evolve means, dif.#2, Biol. to develop, as by a process of differentiation, to a more highly organized condition.
It has always been my understanding that if we evolved from, then we must be evolving to.
How can you say there is no end point, or at least a heading in a direction of some qualitatively superior condition?
Or maybe I didn't understand what you meant!
Erosion slowly makes the Earth smoother, flatter. That's not the aim of Erosion, Erosion just is. And there is no endpoint to Erosion (thanks to other forces which work in the opposite direction).
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
03 Apr 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzOkay, thanks.
Some parts are more highly conserved - for example, a gene necessary for life is far less likely to be mutated than a random piece of DNA. Also, there are viruses which will target things like promoter regions of DNA, increasing the liklihood of mutagenesis in that region.
Not a subject that I'm fully up on. Give me a couple of days and I'll get back to you more on this.
(the part about 'some parts are more highly conserved' is very vague
- not quite sure how why this is)
Get back to me when you can, thanks. 🙂
03 Apr 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfI think he is referring to the likelihood of a particular gene being passed on to a successful offspring. If for example a gene is mutated in the sperm or egg cell and yet the gene is required for say the production of blood cells then the embryo will never make it to birth. So genes that are required for the production of blood cells will always be passed on to successful offspring unmutated whereas genes that affect hair color may mutate and still be passed on. The only case where the blood cell gene will be able to mutate and still be passed on is where such a mutation does not result in failure to produce blood cells.
Okay, thanks.
(the part about 'some parts are more highly conserved' is very vague
- not quite sure how why this is)
Get back to me when you can, thanks. 🙂
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
03 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAh, that is obvious, but how would this work? What causes it?
I think he is referring to the likelihood of a particular gene being passed on to a successful offspring. If for example a gene is mutated in the sperm or egg cell and yet the gene is required for say the production of blood cells then the embryo will never make it to birth. So genes that are required for the production of blood cells will always be passe ...[text shortened]... d still be passed on is where such a mutation does not result in failure to produce blood cells.