Human Evolution
- Thread starter MadamePapillon
- Start date
karlyboo
後輩
- 14 Nov 2007
- 147
- 13
Evolution 101:
Evolution is not 'the best gene wins'. Hence why the analogy of red cubes and green cubes is erroneous. The central mechanism to evolution is mutation. Mutations occur periodically in DNA sequences- we've studied this, we know it occurs.
It is the same mechanism by which a pair of genetically healthy parents can have a genetically unhealthy child.
So you could in fact start with a scenario of purely 'good' genes (again, an oversimplification but one which is redundant to the point) and by the next generation have 'bad' genes introduced.
Mutations may be beneficial or not, depending on the nature of the genetic mutation, it's extent and the environmental factors involved- e.g. a genetic mutation which gives a creature slightly denser fur when that creature lives in a very cold environment will make that creature slightly more likely to survive and potentially pass this dense-fur gene on to the next generation; whereby over time there is the potential for this gene to propagate across the gene pool.
Similarly a 'bad' gene may still be passed on from one generation to the next if it does not prevent the organism which possesses the gene from procreating.
The key theme here is mutation, which can be positive or negative. Mutations happen, therefore there will always be a mixture of genes within an individual organism. The beauty of that being that if the environment suddenly changes, these so-called 'bad' genes may start proving useful and allow that organism a better chance at survival.
More information is available at your local library, Wikipedia, New Scientist, Google Reference Search and much more.
Dimitree did you honestly think you'd found the disproof to evolution which as escaped some of the brightest minds of the last 100 years?
Evolution is not 'the best gene wins'. Hence why the analogy of red cubes and green cubes is erroneous. The central mechanism to evolution is mutation. Mutations occur periodically in DNA sequences- we've studied this, we know it occurs.
It is the same mechanism by which a pair of genetically healthy parents can have a genetically unhealthy child.
So you could in fact start with a scenario of purely 'good' genes (again, an oversimplification but one which is redundant to the point) and by the next generation have 'bad' genes introduced.
Mutations may be beneficial or not, depending on the nature of the genetic mutation, it's extent and the environmental factors involved- e.g. a genetic mutation which gives a creature slightly denser fur when that creature lives in a very cold environment will make that creature slightly more likely to survive and potentially pass this dense-fur gene on to the next generation; whereby over time there is the potential for this gene to propagate across the gene pool.
Similarly a 'bad' gene may still be passed on from one generation to the next if it does not prevent the organism which possesses the gene from procreating.
The key theme here is mutation, which can be positive or negative. Mutations happen, therefore there will always be a mixture of genes within an individual organism. The beauty of that being that if the environment suddenly changes, these so-called 'bad' genes may start proving useful and allow that organism a better chance at survival.
More information is available at your local library, Wikipedia, New Scientist, Google Reference Search and much more.
Dimitree did you honestly think you'd found the disproof to evolution which as escaped some of the brightest minds of the last 100 years?
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- 11 Mar 2005
- 3,136
- 165
@ Dimitree: If you only take away one idea from this whole discussion, this has to be it.
- 28 Jul 2005
- 5,238
- 172
and please do not forget to highlight Nature, Science, and Scientific American....
karlyboo
後輩
- 14 Nov 2007
- 147
- 13
yumeitsumo
Sempai
- 18 Dec 2007
- 526
- 10
I don't think we came from Monkys. Case closed.
I don't think we came from Monkys. Case closed.
bai bai
Stay kirei!
banana ga hoshii!
tamago ga hoshii!
baka janai no?
IIE!
JKJKJK. Bai again.
I don't think we came from Monkys. Case closed.
bai bai
Stay kirei!
banana ga hoshii!
tamago ga hoshii!
baka janai no?
IIE!
JKJKJK. Bai again.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,644
- 203
We didn't come from monkeys. Why is it every person who doesn't accept evolution (see theists) always say we came from monkeys? A myth that is constantly used by theists who don't have a clue what they are on about, and it bugs the hell out of me.I don't think we came from Monkys. Case closed.
I don't think we came from Monkys. Case closed.
bai bai
Stay kirei!
banana ga hoshii!
tamago ga hoshii!
baka janai no?
IIE!
JKJKJK. Bai again.
Monkeys, humans and apes all share a common ancestor. As evolution played out on this creature it slowly split into groups. From one of them came the Apes and humans, and from another came monkeys.
I have yet to see a theist come up with a decent argument against evolution.
Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,644
- 203
I am also a menber on AN forum (Atheist Network). We get a few theists every now and then posting all sorts of rubbish. As I have said I have yet to see a decent argument present itself.
Evolution doesn't currently hold all the answers to life on Earth, but our knowledge is increasing. All creationists can come up with is ID (intelligent design) a very weak counter argument to evoution. It spends most of its time trying to disprove evolution and yet has very weak evidence to back up its dubious claims. I'd rather stick to scientific progression rather than the ramblings of bronze age zealots and shamans.
Evolution doesn't currently hold all the answers to life on Earth, but our knowledge is increasing. All creationists can come up with is ID (intelligent design) a very weak counter argument to evoution. It spends most of its time trying to disprove evolution and yet has very weak evidence to back up its dubious claims. I'd rather stick to scientific progression rather than the ramblings of bronze age zealots and shamans.
Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
While I see atheism obviously has a point, and I don't wish to argue anymore about whether God exists or not, simply because over the past few days my views have changed quite a bit, now im completely clueless about the whole question now... whatever, Im not going to flood the forums with my rubbish. But now im neither an atheist nor a theist, simply i've no clue.
Now let me return to what I was saying. I have nothing against atheism or atheists, but I say, that even though those old chaps might have been wrong, heck knows, they deserve some praise for being ignorant in our place.
Now let me return to what I was saying. I have nothing against atheism or atheists, but I say, that even though those old chaps might have been wrong, heck knows, they deserve some praise for being ignorant in our place.
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,644
- 203
While I have no problem with a bronze age man trying to make sense of the world, I do object that, despite all evidence for evolution and our advancments, that people in the world would still take the word of a dead shamans view of the world over modern science and knowledge, and then condemn anyone who dares insult their beliefs as intolerant hedonists. Pot, kettle and black come to mind.
