warri0r45

:lol: Give us a background story :) You got it. :P This is the superhero Keith Richards. He plays guitar for a band called the Rolling Stones and did/does a lot of drugs. people thought that Keith went over the edge years ago while taking a swag of drugs in a weekend binge. But, to the amazement of onlookers, when peering over the edge, there was a ledge! 'There's a ledge beyon' the edge!' one said, 'Kief landed on it!' 'Not many people make the ledge, ya' know.' Another explained. And thus, Keith Richards, with his sozzled looks and frazzled hair, kept defying death with rockstar superpowers! \

If you don't know then why did you try to answer it? All that makes your answer is conjecture. I'm not going to kid myself. My answer was conjecture. It's not as if you have presented conclusive evidence either, but if you think your idea holds water, write a scientific journal on it. It is not individuals that evolve but populations. A population evolves by gradual changes in gene frequency until it becomes a distinct species that is no longer capable of interbreeding with similar populations that shared a common ancestor. All of the individuals within the population can mate successfully with each other so there is no problem with "hybrids". There are quite a few examples of different populations of the same species which have trouble interbreeding, in other words the hybrids are not viable. These populations are evolving and may become separate species. It is a common mistake to assume that a new species begins when an individual "mutates" or "evolves" in a single step - this is simply not how evolution works. That was more or less my line of thinking with my response to him. But, in all fairness, what I posted was conjecture. You summed up what I should have said - populations evolving eliminate the problem of odd chromosome numbers or genetic inconsistancies due to the gradual nature of mutations.

I'm not going to pretend to know how to answer your question. I'll admit my knowlege on genetics, specifically of chromosomal arrangements, why genes arrage into chromosomes (more specifically how many chromosomes they arrange into), chromosome evolution and how genes are added or lost during mutations, isn't perfect. I'm thinking I'll be learning some of those things next semester but my gut feeling is that if it were as statistically improbable as you suggest, it wouldn't be such a well supported theory. Think about it this way; a species wouldn't be formed by a random chance of two organisms of the same species with the same mutation meeting up and doing the deed. It would logically occur when populations of organisms split and thier particular allelic quirks (traits) combined with environmental pressures, i.e. natural selection lead to variance from the original population. The chromosome issue is interesting. I'll eventually find the answers through my education but I might dig around to see what I can find on the net.

Haha, nice call. Very nice indeed. :P

What about mules? Why can't they mate? They are obviously a stronger animal than a donkey or a horse in areas or else people wouldn't have mated them to create mules for so many years. It's also pretty tough to get much closer than a donkey and a horse while staying as two different species. Shouldn't they evolve so mules can reproduce eventually? Then again mules have been around for probably thousands of years so if they were going to be able to mate one day you would think it would happen by now... Firstly, you'd be right in assuming we don't have all the answers regarding abiogenesis. It's a litle tricky, I think you'd agree, but still possible. It's essentially got nothing to do with darwinian evolution, which focused on life from life, not life from non life. I believe the phrase is 'decent with modification' implying existing life. Think of it this way, does a metalurgist ask how the ore was formed? No, he just does his bit in the line by turning it into metal. Likewise, generally, evolutionists aren't all that concerned with abiogenesis. As for your mule example, therein lies the problem with artificial selection. We selected to breed an organism which is infertile and therefore would not come about through natural selection. They are similar, but in very different theaters with different goals.

I hate to be the barer of this, but you aren't exactly "open" to religions. Explain why and I'll listen. A few of your threads turn into huge religious wars, and you're always involved. That's hard to respond to, to be honest. Ok, bleeding heart time. I don't hate relgions, thier messages, thier followers or the fact that they require faith. I can entertain the idea of a creator, possibly one from the major religions. I'm not going to just say no, you're wrong and my way of thinking reigns supreme. In regards to some of my topics turning into religios flame wars, believe it or not, I like to hear what everyone's views on the supernatural are. I don't get off on telling people how stupid they are or people telling each other how stupid they are because thats... stupid :P And my interest in evolution no doubt ruffles some feathers. So be it. I, personally, would like to find out what the truth is and I believe that science is the only way to do that. Some people believe the answer is in sacred scipture. No big deal, seriously. I realise not everyone thinks like me. If some other theory for how we got here comes along and is reflected in nature (i.e. nature at present reflects evolution. You may see creation and attribute it to design, I see specified genes and attribute them to natural selection) then I'll throw away evolutionary theory without any qualms. I know I'm an open minded person and I genuinely am interested in why people believe what they do. I'm just weighing up the options and I'm always willing to listen to what people have to say. That's mainly why I made the macroevolution topic. To give it a bit of a plug, I'm interested in hearing what barriers would prevent speciation. In no way did I intend to phrase it like 'accept it because it happened.' See what I'm getting at? That's as honestly as I can put it.

I hate to be the barer of this, but you aren't exactly "open" to religions. Explain why and I'll listen.

Can you really just judge death as better because of the lack of pain? There is also a lack of joy from family, a lack of consciousness, a lack of thought, hope, love, happiness. Death lacks so many of the things that we love about life, and you can't just say "what if he has no family, no friends, etc" because again, we don't know what it is to be dead. It's like Hegel's philosophy about the thesis and the antithesis. Do you really know what it is to be a man? Well, if you spent a year as a woman and then went back to being a man, I think you would have a better grasp on what it means to be a man. It's just like life - we don't truly know how awesome life is until maybe we've died - once we know the opposite, we can know for sure. Maybe the smallest joy that life brings outweighs the pain you are talking about. I don't know, but neither do you. That's the take home message I suppose. All we can do is throw ideas around and wonder. I see where you're coming from, hence why my opinion was merely my best bet. I'm not going to pretend I know it's better or worse. One day I'll find out...

I'd concider myself open minded. I'll listen to what anyone has to say and hypothesise and evaluate for myself.

Which was in no way true and in no way reflects what I said. If you understood evolution so well, you wouldn't have posted that. 1)You said that beneficial mutations are rare, that would make non-beneficially mutations not rare. Simple logic. 2)For the second part, you said that when a cell mutates the entire organism mutates. Then you went on to say that it passes down the mutated DNA. 3) I came to the conclusion that what you said goes for beneficial mutations also goes for non-beneficial mutations. If you disagree then you would have to come up with another 4)reason why the majority (which is non-beneficial mutations) don't get absorbed into the community and wipe out (according to macroevolution) all organisms. This other reason could be that 1) cells realize when they have stumbled upon a beneficial mutation 2) you are full of complete phooey. 5)No hard feelings but the double standard game does work when it comes to biology. Its either all or nothing. You know this really is starting to annoy me. Let me try and pick apart what you're saying. Again. I'm really genuinly having trouble trying to decipher what it is you're on about but here goes. 1) What's your point? 2) I said that when a sex cell mutates. Sperm and egg make organism, agreed? When there is a DNA mutation during the process of mieosis (I highly suggest you google the term if you don't already know it) then that mutation will inevitably be transferred to the offspring organism, and will show through if dominant. 3) At the absolute core of evolutionary theory is the undeniable fact that non-beneficial mutations (I'm referring to harmful ones when I say this, Reb makes a valid point in the above post) will always diminish the organisms ability to procreate, by the very definition of the term non-beneficial. I'm really strugling why you would ever suggest that non-beneficial mutations would proliferate at the same rate as beneficial ones. 4) For the reason why, I suggest you read 3) and what natural selection means. It's really simple. Trust me. 5) I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

We're all going to die at some point. It's inevitable. What difference does a few years in eternity make? In all honesty I'd rather take my chances. I can't see how you actually addressed anything I said there. I though I might have rushed through it, sorry. Let me try to think what I was getting at. Sorry, I'll be honest and say I'm not sure what my point was. My best bet would still be death is not worse than what some people experience every waking second of thier lives. Ultimately it should be thier choice. If for some odd reason the only thing you ever experience after death is eternal pain, that's the chance they're going to have to take.

Microevolution is a allelic change (mutation of a gene which makes the protien it codes for function differently) wthin a species while macroevolution is essentially the same affect (as far as I'm aware) yet compounded to form a new species.

How can death be better than life? Why should we help kill such a precious thing as life? No matter how miserable your life is there is always something good you can do with your life. Don't throw away that opportunity just because your life is far from perfect. You're a bit liberal there, don't you think? Some people don't actually have the capacity to help. Some people don't even have the capacity to move. And as a furthur smack in the face, some people can't move and have constant pain. Some can't even think. As sadistic as it sounds, thier crippled bodies have made thier lives worthless. Yeah, life is an absolute gift, but that dosen't mean you should turn a blind eye and let it be a burden.

That in no way proves it wrong nor are there any viable alternatives. The way I see it and from what I know, there is no barrier preventing a compounding effect of microevolutionary changes leading to a speciation event. Surely you could see this with the example I posted. There are no barriers as far as I can tell and DNA, to put it quite bluntly, dosen't care weather we like macroevolution or not. It's just going to keep on mutating and keep doing it's thing; proliferation. All organisms are are a vessel for DNA to spread it'self like a virus and it dosen't go by the label 'species.' All it uses is a simple 4 letter code. Genetics has made evolution so simple for me to comprehend, despite to incredible time, scale and change involved. I'm still genuinely keen to hear of any barriers which prevent speciation. And as for just saying that you understand, that is kind of annoying, seeing as you posted this: Which was in no way true and in no way reflects what I said. If you understood evolution so well, you wouldn't have posted that.

We're all going to die at some point. It's inevitable. What difference does a few years in eternity make? In all honesty I'd rather take my chances.

A few things. DNA is a complete mapping of our genes, that determines everything from appearance to behavior. The notion that our DNA is 100% identical to primates is simply...moronic... The only thing we have in common with primates is the most shared genetic markers. More than any other living thing on Earth. However, these shared markers are just a fraction of a whole strand of DNA. If we had 96-100% identical DNA to monkies, we'd be climbing trees and eating fleas off of our offspring at this moment. And to Warri0r: Macroevolution is drastically different from microevolution. Someone gave an example of a drastic heating change? Although his example is extreme (all humans would die at that temperature within a day), we would simply adapt over time to a smaller climate change. We would still be humans, just a little more galvanized. And my problem with humans is still in effect. 1)The humans with negative mutations still have a chance to procreate and pass along their genes just as much as those with beneficial mutations. However, 2)mutations do not last. 3)Another: Move into a desert area with a lot of sunlight. You will tan. Over time, your descendants will be born darker and darker. Now, they move to a northern region with less sunlight. Over time, they will become lighter and lighter. Microevolution explains this as simple adaptation to the environment, fluid and temporary. 4)Macroevolution would say that these people would be dark forever, until a better offer from genes came along. Which honestly makes more sense? 1) Humans with negative mutations do not always have a chance to procreate nor will they procreate as much as a completely healthy individual or an individual with a beneficial mutation, i.e. one that aids in thier strength/health and thus thier ability to procreate. Don't just apply it to humans, we're a special case, for obvious reasons. Bad mutations will die out, silent mutations will have no effect and good mutations will proliferate. It's just common sense. 2)Mutations do not last? A mutation in a germ line cell will last for that offsprings entire life, and depending on if it is good (higher frequency for mating) or bad (lesser frequency for mating or possibly death), it can and will be passed on to it's offspring, and it's offspring's offspring, and it's offspring's offspring's offspring etc. Good mutations can and will last. It's just common sense. 3) of course that would hapen, you know why? Because the genes which code for the beneficial adaptation would proliferate due to the health of the host organisms. IMAGINE IF THE POPULATION MOVED INTO A DESERT AREA AND STAYED THERE. Thier skin would remain dark and any other mutations which aid in the health of the population would proliferate! There are no barriers stopping this from occuring (I'm still willing to hear of any) and therefore an adaptation, as you call it, would stay in the population's gene pool and proliferate. 4) So you're saying that we migrate to desert, adapt to darker skin, migrate north and according to macroevolution we all have to stay that way forever untill better mutations mean that lighter skin is gained again? Yes, that's what happens. You're line of thinking is really puzzling me. Please, explain, in terms of genetics, how we gain an adaptation, migrate where it is undesirable and how it goes back to how it was previously. 1)How do our cells know if a mutation is beneficial or not? According to what you just said beneficial mutations are rare, meaning that there are non-beneficial mutations. 2)Then you go on to say that the genes in the organism will never change and will always be passed down the line until they are themselves mutated. 3)According to what you just said the majority of mutations would be non-beneficial and these mutations would pass down until the entire organism is non-beneficially mutated. This leaves the result that macroevolution, if it did happen, would not be beneficial to any species. phooey. 1) Cells don't know weather a mutation is beneficial or not, it's only when the organism carrying that mutation reaches sexual maturation that it's mutation either aids in it's health and therfore mating ability, or diminishes it's health and therefore mating ability. If the mutation is so bad, which in some cases it is, the organism may not even reach sexual maturation. 2) Yes, that's right. It's all in genetics, mate. Genes from one organism don't just magically change during it's lifetime. They are set in stone and will (in case of sexually reproducing, diploid individuals [i.e. us + other animals]) combine, along with any mutations, with another parent set of genes to form a new organism. Mind you there are ways of randomising genes, but only during mieosis. If you don't know some of these terms, I highly reccomend you research. 3) Total and utter rubbish. Please, go read about it. Bad mutations die out due to the reduced health and mating opportunity of an organism and good mutations, which do occur, will proliferate. It's just common sense. Anything which causes harm to the system is thrown out. Anything which causes benefit is kept. How do the cells realize that a mutation is beneficial or not? They don't. No matter how favored or not a trait is does not make cells self aware. Unless you are assuming that cells choose the better mutations over the bad mutations. You are foolish. I'm not saying that to flame you I'm saying that to point out your blunder in trying to say that 1)cells know the difference between a useful mutation and a bad mutation. 1) That's not what he was sayng. As I said above, cells are oblivious to the whole process. They are drones and will just do whatever the DNA codes them to do. It's only us humans which have the mental capacity to label a mutation as good or bad. They're just labels. Don't let them confuse you. All the information you need is in genetics.

More specifically, we and chimps had a common ancestor which split in a speciation 'event' to eventually give us chimps and us. You're right in saying our DNA is remarkably similar. Coincidence? There's enough coincidental evidence to make common ancestry statistically viable, at bare minimum. There is more evidence than just coincidences, though. I'm still yet to hear any barriers that prevent DNA mutations from eventualy forming an organism sufficiently different from the original.

I'm not all that surprised, to be honest. It's been done before and will in the future. The only thing wierd about it is that they decided to do it in class, in front of all of the other kids. I'm wondering if it was planned or spontaneous...

Firstly, your arguments are really simplistic. What's to say it dosen't happen? What barriers prevent those changes? Don't just say you don't like it and post pictures. Granted, you're sleepy so you're probably going to provide a more well formulated argument later. As a sidenote, abiogenesis (life from non life) is a common target for evolution skeptics despite the fact it's not actually part of evolutionary theory and certainly not part of what macroevolution is. p.s. that's a great picture of Jessica Alba. :P

Explain this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ ok, so it's a lot, lets start at one thing. Explain this one thing without resorting to macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses It's pretty simple if a virus randomly inserts its DNA into the host, then all descendants of the host should have that virus DNA. The good thing about this is that it can be falsified pretty easily, unrelated species such as humans and dogs should not have the same randomly inserted virus DNA. The link also provides a diagram showing how humans evolved using this method. But hey like always, this is going to be ignored and the same old people are going to argue the same old things. Perhaps they will listen, you never know. That's quite an interesting find and would map out human evolution pretty clearly. As I've been saying, there are no barriers to macroevolution in DNA. Infact, as your example points out, it suggests it.

There's a simple reason why humans appear not to evolve. Very simple, infact. We determine our own nature, therefore natural selection no longer plays a role for us (in the western world, that is) which isn't to say that it didn't. We have evolved to a rediculous point where we actually try to prevent the proliferation of our genes (contraception). Wierd, but it's because we know that overpopulation could be then end of us all. In the end, you can be of the opinion that macroevolution is fooey, but it's, as far as I can tell, no different from microevolution. They are terms we humans made up to explain the adaptive nature of an organism (micro) and the method of one species (also a human proposed term) separating into multiple populations which, through gene flow and isolation, produces new species. All of these terms are semantically null when it comes to DNA. For some reason (well, entropy, perhaps) DNA does not pair perfectly, and thus forms mutations. When during gamete (sperm + egg) production, these mutations are passed on to the offspring. Any offspring with beneficial mutations (yes, they are rare but they do happen and are multiplied by different factors) will have a greater chance to procreate and spread thier genes. The genes that are in an organism will never change and will always be passed down the line untlill they are themselves mutated. It's a very fluid system, much more than the labels 'species' 'micro/macroevolution' would have you think. And perhaps you could explain a tad more what you're saying in the bold. I'll listen and want to hear reasons why people don't accept macroevolution, seriously.

I believe people shouldn't base there will to live on their physical condition. I find that mildly sadistic. The fact that you would value life if it's only purpose was to provide it's host with endless suffering. I'm assuming you're morals are absolute. I just tend not to agree with them. It's no big deal for you or me, but some people... I don't even wan't to being to think about it.

But would you agree that some people have really miserably horrid existances? It's pretty sickening some of the situations people end up in be they genetic or not.

Technically, yea, it's assault and you just admitted that to us. As Bubsa said, it's a pretty petty incident and you should probably be embarrased that you started the obvious meaningless violence (I know it's cliche, but it really dosen't achieve anything, it just gets you into hot water), but it would be pretty low of him to sue over something so miniscule, really (unless you broke is nose or something :uhh: ).