Quote from Israfel

Quote from TwilightDrgn

Quote from Israfel

i doubt evolution can be disproved, lol, the fact that we can observe it on a life span (bacteria...and other short life spanned organisms all show evolution)

however, what is up to dispute is the drive force of evolution. is it nature? or competition? or even god?

May I be inquisitive for but a moment? How does bacteria or any other short life-spanned organisms show evolution? No offense but from what I've heard evolution means the adding of additional bodily functions and as far as I know adding different circumstances to short lived organisms only slims down function (ie. when a bacteria becomes immune to a chemical it isn't that it became immune to it but that it never was able to produce the chemical the other bacteria could, that would in turn kill it if it could produce said chemical).

evolution is not necessarily the adding of body functions. it simply is any changes that allows an organism to better survive in order to reproduce and pass on its genes.

so, a bacteria that becomes immune to a chemical will become more likely to pass on its genes. that fact that is is immune unlike others is a change. the question is, where did that immunity come from? A random mutation that happens to allow this one to survive and reproduce later generations? Or an internal response to form new changes? Or even a (god)?
Changes doesn’t have to be functions. changes in appearance that allow for better reproduction is a very simple and apparent one. It provides no additional function, but it is a change for the better transfer of genes.

-I won't disagree with you that it is more likely to survive to pass on it's genes but aren't the bacteria who died otherwise more hearty. Also let's say that the situation arose that the bacteria were wiped out because of some circumstance that they needed that function and were no longer capable of it, then according to a evolutionary standpoint what is the correct route in order to survive? In order for that bacteria to be able to survive it would need a defense mechanism it didn't have even though the "less evolved" variety would be able to survive such a thing.

"Don't worry about the fine print. The soul consumption clause is never exorcised

there’s no such thing as a more evolved or less evolved. Evolution simply adapts an organism to a state best for its current environment. Infact, the evolution can make an organism more “degrade” in terms of evolution, if it means adaptation and survival in the current environment. if less functions are required for better survival and transfer of the genes, then that’s how the evolution will gear towards. And if in the future that function is required once again, the evolution will bring it back.

"Rule No. 1 is, don't sweat the small stuff. Rule No. 2 is, it's all small stuff." - Robert Eliot, Writer

"Oh boy, here we go...again." - Israfel

I'm getting too old....

Quote from Israfel

there’s no such thing as a more evolved or less evolved. Evolution simply adapts an organism to a state best for its current environment. Infact, the evolution can make an organism more “degrade” in terms of evolution, if it means adaptation and survival in the current environment. if less functions are required for better survival and transfer of the genes, then that’s how the evolution will gear towards. And if in the future that function is required once again, the evolution will bring it back.

To be honest the only account of evolution I ever heard of that way was from when I read from Darwin. Though to be honest if you read his book you can almost see it as if he thought a deity was orchestrating the whole thing. You see phrases that almost depict evolution as sentient. This is not my opinion though. As far as I see it I have not been able to be able to find any account of additional complexity being added to the genetic code of any organism by mutation. As far as I can tell mutation either will have little or no change or it will further cause "fraying" of the genetic code. Now I may be wrong but as far as I have heard of the opposite has not been observed.

"Don't worry about the fine print. The soul consumption clause is never exorcised

i'm not about to reject the possibilty of an upper deity being the control of evolution. i have no idea what the mechanism behind it is. However, darwin's literature is a bit dated, if resourceful. when he publicized it, just the idea of evolution was blasphemous, and he was a very religious man. it can be understandable taht he wished to form a connection between his discovery and his faith, else his foundations of thoughts will be destroyed.

as for mutation, i have doubts just like you, since its too random. But, it could be possible, since a lucky mutation that might help in survival will lead to offsprings of the same mutation. and among those offsprings there might be some with mutations that will further the survival of the organism, thus forming a chain of events.

there's also selection as a basis. for example, mating requires taht those with more advantageous characteristics to survive better. better looks and strength all are a part of it in the world. even in the human society we can see that some get laid more easily than others, for characterists that are better (looks, intellegence, strength, and all that). ;D

"Rule No. 1 is, don't sweat the small stuff. Rule No. 2 is, it's all small stuff." - Robert Eliot, Writer

"Oh boy, here we go...again." - Israfel

I'm getting too old....

Quote from Israfel

there's also selection as a basis. for example, mating requires taht those with more advantageous characteristics to survive better. better looks and strength all are a part of it in the world. even in the human society we can see that some get laid more easily than others, for characterists that are better (looks, intellegence, strength, and all that). ;D

🤣    That's sexual selection. You could use that as an excuse for being shallow... "I was only trying to leave fit descendants so I can't date fugly people" (an example, not something I would say)

Actually, Darwin's agnostic. I don’t know which book you were talking about, but even in The Origin of Species he was sort of hinting that he didn't think that god created us. It was other naturalists of his time who combined evolution with the creation story.

Anway, evolution is a fact. If it isn’t, AIDS would be easily cured. However, what we don't know is at which level it works at. Species, popullation, individual, or genes?

Quote from amaranthine

Quote from Israfel

there's also selection as a basis. for example, mating requires taht those with more advantageous characteristics to survive better. better looks and strength all are a part of it in the world. even in the human society we can see that some get laid more easily than others, for characterists that are better (looks, intellegence, strength, and all that). ;D

 🤣     That's sexual selection. You could use that as an excuse for being shallow... "I was only trying to leave fit descendants so I can't date fugly people" (an example, not something I would say)

Actually, Darwin's agnostic. I don’t know which book you were talking about, but even in The Origin of Species he was sort of hinting that he didn't think that god created us. It was other naturalists of his time who combined evolution with the creation story.

Anway, evolution is a fact. If it isn’t, AIDS would be easily cured. However, what we don't know is at which level it works at. Species, popullation, individual, or genes?

The reason that AIDS isn't easily cured is because unlike most viruses that inhabit normal cell, AIDS infects white blood cells, attacking the very defense that the body uses to fend off viruses, directly. Also natural selection is an over used ploy that though it narrows down the gene pool to the strongest it has nothing to do with genetic material organizing itself in a more complex manner. As I said earlier I have never heard of an observed instance where the genetic material of an organism got more complex short of genetic engineering by humans.

"Don't worry about the fine print. The soul consumption clause is never exorcised

I believe in evolution, but not macroevolution. Microevolution on the other hand, I fully support, and a little hint here that through several hundreds, thousands, millions of years, microevolution could be likened to macroevolution.

And no, although I might have some interest as to where humans originated from, it will never be something that matters to me.

[img]http://valenth.com/lab/81563.png[/img]Feed Me!
Adopted from Valenth

Quote from TwilightDrgn

Quote from amaranthine

Quote from Israfel

there's also selection as a basis. for example, mating requires taht those with more advantageous characteristics to survive better. better looks and strength all are a part of it in the world. even in the human society we can see that some get laid more easily than others, for characterists that are better (looks, intellegence, strength, and all that). ;D

  🤣      That's sexual selection. You could use that as an excuse for being shallow... "I was only trying to leave fit descendants so I can't date fugly people" (an example, not something I would say)

Actually, Darwin's agnostic. I don’t know which book you were talking about, but even in The Origin of Species he was sort of hinting that he didn't think that god created us. It was other naturalists of his time who combined evolution with the creation story.

Anway, evolution is a fact. If it isn’t, AIDS would be easily cured. However, what we don't know is at which level it works at. Species, popullation, individual, or genes?

The reason that AIDS isn't easily cured is because unlike most viruses that inhabit normal cell, AIDS infects white blood cells, attacking the very defense that the body uses to fend off viruses, directly. Also natural selection is an over used ploy that though it narrows down the gene pool to the strongest it has nothing to do with genetic material organizing itself in a more complex manner. As I said earlier I have never heard of an observed instance where the genetic material of an organism got more complex short of genetic engineering by humans.

actually, drgn, i have to disagree with you on that one. various drugs have been discovered that combats the virus. however, none last long, since the evolution of the virus' resistance against the drugs are faster than the research for the drugs. trust me, there has been vaccines for aids, i attended a medical conference that my dad was in(i sorta sat in the back XD) and they discussed this

aids is not the only disease. common cold is another one. there's no long retention drug or vaccine against it

"Rule No. 1 is, don't sweat the small stuff. Rule No. 2 is, it's all small stuff." - Robert Eliot, Writer

"Oh boy, here we go...again." - Israfel

I'm getting too old....

im confused by what you mean by additional complexity though...

all that mutations do are change a few base pairs of dna during the replication of sperm or egg and this mutation is passed on to future offspring. this mutation is due to sexual reproduction. sexual reproduction combines the dna from two of the same species in order create offspring. because it's a combination of two different dna strands, there can be (not necessarily occurs) mutations. mutations don't add anything to the amount of dna. they just changed a base pair (A/T/C/G) and this mutation may or may not be beneficial (evolution can be but is not necessarily beneficial...for example beneficial: decendants of plague survivors immune to hiv due to delta32 mutation / not beneficial: sickle cell anemia carriers (only one copy of gene) benefit from partial resistance to malaria but people who actually express sickle cell anemia (2 copies of the gene) will probably die in childhood)
the fact that the hiv virus targets the immune system is probably a result of evolution too (though i have no proof to back this up). a model would be the ancestor to the hiv-1 and hiv-2 virus adapting to target a monkey's immune system to survive. the other forms of that virus would eventually die out due to natural selection and when the hiv virus jumped species from primate/simian to humans, it carried this adapted trait of targeting an organism's immune system.

[img]http://i17.tinypic.com/7wh7xx1.jpg[/img]

Quote from Aerus

im confused by what you mean by additional complexity though...

all that mutations do are change a few base pairs of dna during the replication of sperm or egg and this mutation is passed on to future offspring. this mutation is due to sexual reproduction. sexual reproduction combines the dna from two of the same species in order create offspring. because it's a combination of two different dna strands, there can be (not necessarily occurs) mutations. mutations don't add anything to the amount of dna. they just changed a base pair (A/T/C/G) and this mutation may or may not be beneficial (evolution can be but is not necessarily beneficial...for example beneficial: decendants of plague survivors immune to hiv due to delta32 mutation / not beneficial: sickle cell anemia carriers (only one copy of gene) benefit from partial resistance to malaria but people who actually express sickle cell anemia (2 copies of the gene) will probably die in childhood)
the fact that the hiv virus targets the immune system is probably a result of evolution too (though i have no proof to back this up). a model would be the ancestor to the hiv-1 and hiv-2 virus adapting to target a monkey's immune system to survive. the other forms of that virus would eventually die out due to natural selection and when the hiv virus jumped species from primate/simian to humans, it carried this adapted trait of targeting an organism's immune system.

O.K. micro-evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution) (basically where aspects are picked by either natural selection or selective breeding to keep or to try to create a pure-blooded breed where those aspects no longer exist) is like a wolf being the progenitor of poodles, whereas macro-evolution is the kind that many people often speak of, where a fish-like creature changed into an amphibian-like creature. In order for a pure-blooded breed of poodles to change into a wolf-like creature that would involve macro-evolution, where aspects where added in order to do so. What I am saying is that I have never heard of mutation allowing for an aspect to be added (as in the case of poodle changing to a wolf-like creature) in order to survive being observed.

"Don't worry about the fine print. The soul consumption clause is never exorcised

microevolution is just small changes in dna occuring over generations ( the one you linked is broken cuz of the ) btw [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution[/url] ) this does not mean that it's goal is to form some kinda of pure-blood creature...
these small changes in dna do not not have to confer any form of benefit since evolution is random...inf act they might detract from a species survivability; in which case the organisms with that mutation will eventually die out

[img]http://i17.tinypic.com/7wh7xx1.jpg[/img]

Quote from Aerus

microevolution is just small changes in dna occuring over generations ( the one you linked is broken cuz of the ) btw [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution[/url] ) this does not mean that it's goal is to form some kinda of pure-blood creature...
these small changes in dna do not not have to confer any form of benefit since evolution is random...inf act they might detract from a species survivability; in which case the organisms with that mutation will eventually die out

First of all I always apologize for all of the times where I am unclear.

What I was trying to say was that if such a case were to happen that a pure-bred breed of creatures needed the aspects of one of its progenitors that I have never heard evidence of such an observation as a mutation allowing a pure blooded breed of creatures to retake the aspects that they no longer held but that their progenitors did.

Also I would like to apologize about my inaccurate definition of evolution, but the fact remains that in order for the changes to occur that would lead to what we have today from some primeval soup there would have to have been some positive progression from simpler base life forms that science claims that we came from to the more complex that we are today (in the case of a certain member that was ranting the other day I wonder a bit though).

"Don't worry about the fine print. The soul consumption clause is never exorcised

Quote from Aerus

mutations don't add anything to the amount of dna Not true. Some of them can change the amount of DNA. Simple duplication, or movement of an autonomous DNA with duplication.

Quote from TwilightDrgn

...the fact remains that in order for the changes to occur that would lead to what we have today from some primeval soup there would have to have been some positive progression from simpler base life forms that science claims that we came from to the more complex that we are today (in the case of a certain member that was ranting the other day I wonder a bit though).

Positive progression? Evolution is based on accidents. All mutations are completely accidental, whether they're good for the organism or not. Us being what we are now, is an accident too. We were lucky.

Quote from TwilightDrgn

What I was trying to say was that if such a case were to happen that a pure-bred breed of creatures needed the aspects of one of its progenitors that I have never heard evidence of such an observation as a mutation allowing a pure blooded breed of creatures to retake the aspects that they no longer held but that their progenitors did.

It all depends on the environment. One change of it allowed the mutated ones (M+) to surpass the others (without that mutation, M-). But what if there are another changes? Later the M+ may be all gone because of their mutation, and the M- may be retaking their territory. Scientists and even students see this situation with bacteria populations every day in the labs. And it happens in your bodies, everyday.

There's not such a thing as a genetic pure-bred breed. Mutation is a term used for a change in DNA or RNA ( some viruses don't have DNA at all, only RNA) in comparison to the former, stable state. Who would be a pure breed amongst humans? Noone. And, to scare you a little - we all have an average amount of 6 potentially fatal mutations ( but because we're diploids, there would have to be an another copy of this gene to cause death ). Good luck choosing the mothers/fathers of your kids in the future.

We've wandered far away from the original topic.

[img]http://img.userbars.pl/69/13603.gif[/img]
Still the [color=red]bad[/color] cop.

oh well, its still somewhat connect with it, since evo is a theory for it.

and indreju, we can't say that evolution is based on accidents. the mechanism behind it is still up for questioning, even though i base it on survival.

"Rule No. 1 is, don't sweat the small stuff. Rule No. 2 is, it's all small stuff." - Robert Eliot, Writer

"Oh boy, here we go...again." - Israfel

I'm getting too old....

No, it does not matter to me, since its in the past, and the past needs to stay in the past.