evolution
-
i took the evolution module in my studies. and i've been and will be working in an evolution lab. i know what i have studied. but recently, i came across a book entitled, "Darwinism refuted". and when i read the beginning parts, i find myself scoffing at the book's arguments against darwinism, cos they totally go against wad i learnt, and the arguments are so unfounded to me.
the thing is this: i am born a christian. i was a creationist when i first knew what to think. but now, with proper understanding of the theory of evolution, i think i've lost track of what non-evolutionists think about evolution.
so i would like to ask all of you this:
what do you understand about darwin's theory of evolution?
do you believe in it?
what do you agree with and what do you disagree with the theory? -
God created and then his creations evolved...
btw, a lot of those who "refute" or whatever have a demented agenda... just like that guy who wrote books to refute the existence of God..
the book was basically a demented rant of circular arguments
-
the book i was talkin about was like, "there is no observed mutations that ever resulted in advantages. all mutations cause deformities, disruptions to proper functioning and even cause fatalities"
and i was like..... that is so not true.
blink blink. -
yeah.. i figured so...
for the multitudes of deformities, there are some which give an advantage.. and because of that advantage, they will breed more.. and thus that gene becomes more prevalent until it becomes dominant in the species..
well, on the other hand, there is still a lack of a missing link in human evolution..
who knows?
me? i leave it be.. there are so many out there with their own agenda, fighting each other... just like the idiots in Palestine now.. both say they are trying to give the people a better life, but end up in running gun battles where the very people they are supposed to be serving are killed...
let them be.. we should just discard the lunatic fringeOriginally posted by starblue:the book i was talkin about was like, "there is no observed mutations that ever resulted in advantages. all mutations cause deformities, disruptions to proper functioning and even cause fatalities"
and i was like..... that is so not true.
blink blink. -
no, anyway, i just wanna know what non-evolutionists understand about the theory of evolution lah... mind sharing what you know???Originally posted by the Bear:yeah.. i figured so...
for the multitudes of deformities, there are some which give an advantage.. and because of that advantage, they will breed more.. and thus that gene becomes more prevalent until it becomes dominant in the species..
well, on the other hand, there is still a lack of a missing link in human evolution..
who knows?
me? i leave it be.. there are so many out there with their own agenda, fighting each other... just like the idiots in Palestine now.. both say they are trying to give the people a better life, but end up in running gun battles where the very people they are supposed to be serving are killed...
let them be.. we should just discard the lunatic fringe -
*Blinks harder*Originally posted by starblue:the book i was talkin about was like, "there is no observed mutations that ever resulted in advantages. all mutations cause deformities, disruptions to proper functioning and even cause fatalities"
and i was like..... that is so not true.
blink blink.
Your kitten pics are so cute. But come to think of it, when there are no mutations/ evolutionary traits, then how different are those kittens from lion and tiger cubs?
-
actually, i dun quite get what you mean...Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:*Blinks harder*
Your kitten pics are so cute. But come to think of it, when there are no mutations/ evolutionary traits, then how different are those kittens from lion and tiger cubs?
anyway, mind sharing what you know about evolution??? what do you think it means, what does it involve? -
not much except the bit i wrote.. i'm not a biology person except i watch a lot of Animal Planet, Nat Geo and Discovery
the evolution of species is what Darwin came up with to explain how come the species in the galapagos are so specialised and he probably figured out that they evolved..
sort of like the iguana evolved over time to take advantage of the algae in the sea.. those which could or learnt to eat the stuff had an advantage and that was passed on to their offspring.. the others which could not died out.. the dominant one which ate the algae had the behaviour reinforced and in time evolved?
i dunno.. that's how the documentaries explained it..
heck! i look at some things as 'mini-evolutions'
i get vaccinated against hepatitis = i've evolved a little to become immune to it -
Cats, Tigers, Lions belong to the feline family but why are cats so small and people can keep them as pets? It's because of the physical and social traits of cats have changed or in a way, evolved. It's just my own 2 cents.Originally posted by starblue:actually, i dun quite get what you mean...
anyway, mind sharing what you know about evolution??? what do you think it means, what does it involve? -
Duh, that's vaccination, there will not any hereditary traits passed on to your progeny.Originally posted by the Bear:not much except the bit i wrote.. i'm not a biology person except i watch a lot of Animal Planet, Nat Geo and Discovery
the evolution of species is what Darwin came up with to explain how come the species in the galapagos are so specialised and he probably figured out that they evolved..
sort of like the iguana evolved over time to take advantage of the algae in the sea.. those which could or learnt to eat the stuff had an advantage and that was passed on to their offspring.. the others which could not died out.. the dominant one which ate the algae had the behaviour reinforced and in time evolved?
i dunno.. that's how the documentaries explained it..
heck! i look at some things as 'mini-evolutions'
i get vaccinated against hepatitis = i've evolved a little to become immune to it -
ah... i see... but in that explanation, do you wonder how entire species can be formed? i mean, take that iguana case for example... the "evolution" in this case only resulted in an iguana that took to eating algae, but it is still an iguana.Originally posted by the Bear:not much except the bit i wrote.. i'm not a biology person except i watch a lot of Animal Planet, Nat Geo and Discovery
the evolution of species is what Darwin came up with to explain how come the species in the galapagos are so specialised and he probably figured out that they evolved..
sort of like the iguana evolved over time to take advantage of the algae in the sea.. those which could or learnt to eat the stuff had an advantage and that was passed on to their offspring.. the others which could not died out.. the dominant one which ate the algae had the behaviour reinforced and in time evolved?
i dunno.. that's how the documentaries explained it..
heck! i look at some things as 'mini-evolutions'
i get vaccinated against hepatitis = i've evolved a little to become immune to it -
physical and social traits of cats evolved from?? are u implying, perhaps, that tigers and lions are the "ancestors" of cats?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Cats, Tigers, Lions belong to the feline family but why are cats so small and people can keep them as pets? It's because of the physical and social traits of cats have changed or in a way, evolved. It's just my own 2 cents. -
some evolve and their DNA changes until it is totally different from another which is also as successful in other ways...
besides, there may be many starting species tooOriginally posted by starblue:ah... i see... but in that explanation, do you wonder how entire species can be formed? i mean, take that iguana case for example... the "evolution" in this case only resulted in an iguana that took to eating algae, but it is still an iguana. -
Some changes are more 'visual' while others are not...Originally posted by starblue:ah... i see... but in that explanation, do you wonder how entire species can be formed? i mean, take that iguana case for example... the "evolution" in this case only resulted in an iguana that took to eating algae, but it is still an iguana.
The so called 'distinct species' you see today are likely to be evolved bits by bits through time too... Just that you're probably not there to see it happen... And by now since we were born and taught.. The species we looked have already been rather well-classified by us and hence our ancestors.... As Earth's condition is just like a more or less stablised eco-system for now, you're unlikely to see too drastic changes... But yet, we're already fed with the idea of 'mutations' at a rather young age... Chances are creatures with minor mutations (if 'visible' at all) would be grouped under a certain species anyway (human has a largely well ability to categorise things). Creatures too far off are either unlikely to be surviving well or be classified simply as 'mutant' (in layman's term).
The rest are just more about dominance and advantages as explained by others..
By the way, you working in Singapore? If it a research lab you're working in? Sounds like an interesting job? -
*brings out the bible*
where should i begin~ -
I actually wanna type what i think n know.. but its gonna be ReAL long.. anyone care to read ?
-
Ask God?
Ask Science?
ask science, at least it answers faster... -
Ask Mr Sabertooth Tiger of Ice Age.Originally posted by starblue:physical and social traits of cats evolved from?? are u implying, perhaps, that tigers and lions are the "ancestors" of cats? He's their great grand papa. -
Some mutations can result in a survival advantage, but how that leads to natural selection to the advantage of the species is more complex. Take the SARS virus. It was probably a mutation that converted a virus that caused a zoonosis to jump species and infect humans. So it had a wider number of suitable hosts and I suppose one might think that is an advantage. But it was pretty virulent too and killed many of its hosts. Does that confer a survival advantage?Originally posted by starblue:the book i was talkin about was like, "there is no observed mutations that ever resulted in advantages. all mutations cause deformities, disruptions to proper functioning and even cause fatalities"
and i was like..... that is so not true.
blink blink.
No, it does not. If the host dies, it dies with the host. However, as viruses do, they mutate again and again (since they have such rapid replication rates). In the end, it appears that a less virulent strain survives and co-exists in harmony with its host (subsequent SARS cases in China became progressively less serious and now we don't even hear of it) whilst the original virulent ones died with its victims.
I believe in natural selection and the possibility of evolution. Whether humans have evolved from apes is another story. For evolution to result in the emergence of man, it will require a very long period to evolve. I understand the arguments between creationists and evolutionists lie with the age of the earth. That is crucial. If the earth is too young, there would not be enough time for evolution to lead to the emergence of humans from primitive unicellular organisms. Given that we can extract DNA and even proteins from fossils (osteocalcin has been extracted from dinosaur fossils), creationists argue that the earth is not as old as it is made out to be. I don't know if that's true, but it does strike me as amazing that you can extract proteins from dinosaur bones millions of years old when my western blot fails if my nurse forgot to freeze a sample quickly enough.
Another (rather old) piece of information I remember reading in the journal Science some 10 years ago struck me as being rather odd. They found a very high proportion of amino acids in the levo isoform within some ancient fossil. Amino acids in organic tissues are in the L-form. Given that amino acids racemize within a definite period of time, it is surprising that the scientists did not find a racemic mixture after all these milliions of years. The creationists would argue that it proves the earth is only thousands of years and not millions of years old. But without the millions of years, humans cannot be here today, even if the theory of evolution is true.
As organisms become more complex (with longer lifespans and lower reproduction rates), you need to wait far longer for mutations to result in significant natural selection. The move towards sexual reproduction means that a mutation must occur in the gonads to be passed on to its progeny. A mutation in your skin cell can give rise to cancer, but it cannot be transmitted to your children. Given the short reproductive life of complex organisms like humans (from about 13 to 45 years old), the fact that the woman can only release one egg each month and lactation for one baby eliminates the chance of further pregnancy, future evolution of humans will take even longer.
Given the diminishing reproductive rates of humans, perhaps it will be some other species that will evolve quicker and in the event of a global catastrophe such as another meteorite attack, it might well be another animal that will adapt fast enough to rule the earth.....Cats maybe, Starblue? -
A fungus is a simple enough lifeform to replicate quickly.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Some mutations can result in a survival advantage, but how that leads to natural selection to the advantage of the species is more complex. Take the SARS virus. It was probably a mutation that converted a virus that caused a zoonosis to jump species and infect humans. So it had a wider number of suitable hosts and I suppose one might think that is an advantage. But it was pretty virulent too and killed many of its hosts. Does that confer a survival advantage?
No, it does not. If the host dies, it dies with the host. However, as viruses do, they mutate again and again (since they have such rapid replication rates). In the end, it appears that a less virulent strain survives and co-exists in harmony with its host (subsequent SARS cases in China became progressively less serious and now we don't even hear of it) whilst the original virulent ones died with its victims.
I believe in natural selection and the possibility of evolution. Whether humans have evolved from apes is another story. For evolution to result in the emergence of man, it will require a very long period to evolve. I understand the arguments between creationists and evolutionists lie with the age of the earth. That is crucial. If the earth is too young, there would not be enough time for evolution to lead to the emergence of humans from primitive unicellular organisms. Given that we can extract DNA and even proteins from fossils (osteocalcin has been extracted from dinosaur fossils), creationists argue that the earth is not as old as it is made out to be. I don't know if that's true, but it does strike me as amazing that you can extract proteins from dinosaur bones millions of years old when my western blot fails if my nurse forgot to freeze a sample quickly enough.
Another (rather old) piece of information I remember reading in the journal Science some 10 years ago struck me as being rather odd. They found a very high proportion of amino acids in the levo isoform within some ancient fossil. Amino acids in organic tissues are in the L-form. Given that amino acids racemize within a definite period of time, it is surprising that the scientists did not find a racemic mixture after all these milliions of years. The creationists would argue that it proves the earth is only thousands of years and not millions of years old. But without the millions of years, humans cannot be here today, even if the theory of evolution is true.
As organisms become more complex (with longer lifespans and lower reproduction rates), you need to wait far longer for mutations to result in significant natural selection. The move towards sexual reproduction means that a mutation must occur in the gonads to be passed on to its progeny. A mutation in your skin cell can give rise to cancer, but it cannot be transmitted to your children. Given the short reproductive life of complex organisms like humans (from about 13 to 45 years old), the fact that the woman can only release one egg each month and lactation for one baby eliminates the chance of further pregnancy, future evolution of humans will take even longer.
Given the diminishing reproductive rates of humans, perhaps it will be some other species that will evolve quicker and in the event of a global catastrophe such as another meteorite attack, it might well be another animal that will adapt fast enough to rule the earth.....Cats maybe, Starblue? -
lol, wut? you study biology you should be the most knowledgeable person here what.
-
the.owl is starting to irritate, really.
of all the theories on evolution I heard .. seriously, I think Darwin makes the most sense. -
i am... evolving!!
lol.. survival of the fittest. Then they start to evolve.Its all about survival. We evolve to survive. The one that adapts rules the planet..
we are but second to cockroaches.. he he in terms of surviving the radiation.. must be the solar radiation , during eons ago. damn~! we need to be exposed subtely to all these things to make us become..exposed to exteme evolution..like X-Men. -
when people say, "humans evolved from apes", what do you people think about this?? if i were to tell you that this phrasing is inherently flawed, what would you think about the evolution of humans as a species?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I believe in natural selection and the possibility of evolution. Whether humans have evolved from apes is another story.
The move towards sexual reproduction means that a mutation must occur in the gonads to be passed on to its progeny. A mutation in your skin cell can give rise to cancer, but it cannot be transmitted to your children. Given the short reproductive life of complex organisms like humans (from about 13 to 45 years old), the fact that the woman can only release one egg each month and lactation for one baby eliminates the chance of further pregnancy, future evolution of humans will take even longer.
Given the diminishing reproductive rates of humans, perhaps it will be some other species that will evolve quicker and in the event of a global catastrophe such as another meteorite attack, it might well be another animal that will adapt fast enough to rule the earth.....Cats maybe, Starblue?
indeed, for mutations to play a role in evolution, it is imperative that "advantagous" mutations occur in genes that will be passed down to the children, that is, the mutation must occur in an individual's gametes (egg cell or sperm cell's genetic makeup). considering the fact that the average male produces millions of sperm cells a day (which means, a super duper high rate of proliferation), do you think that mutations are still too rare to occur in the gonads?
statistically speaking, about 20% of conception consists of zygotes that contain mutations, but only a tiny fraction is ever born, much less survived to procreate (which is why we dun see many real life examples). but that high percentage of conception with mutations implies that mutations DO get passed on to offspring at a rather large frequency. considering our neighbours in the animal kingdom, (some of which have impressive birth rates), is it still too far fetched to say that perhaps those births would yield individuals born with advantagous mutations that occurred during the formation the parental gametes? -
"survival of the fittest" always comes up when people are discussing about natural selection. mind sharing what you guys understand about this? in fact, what do you guys understand about natural selection??Originally posted by BadzMaro:i am... evolving!!
lol.. survival of the fittest. Then they start to evolve.Its all about survival. We evolve to survive. The one that adapts rules the planet..
we are but second to cockroaches.. he he in terms of surviving the radiation.. must be the solar radiation , during eons ago. damn~! we need to be exposed subtely to all these things to make us become..exposed to exteme evolution..like X-Men.