 |
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:27 pm |
  |
|
| lobf |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 29 Jul 2004 |
| Posts: 1076 |
Age:92
|
Gender:  |
| Location: LA |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
So, the President is talking about preparations for the bird flu. He is saying that it should be assumed that it will mutate into a form that can be transferred to humans... Scientists call this 'evolution'.
Not such an out-there theory when it's put into the right context, is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:33 pm |
|
|
| mathguy2718 |
|
 |
| |
| Joined: 03 Aug 2003 |
| Posts: 2265 |
Age:22
|
| Gender: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I don't think anyone ever discounted so-called "micro" evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:31 pm |
|
|
| Will |
|
 |
| |
| Joined: 06 Apr 2005 |
| Posts: 741 |
Age:19
|
| Gender: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Is it really evolving? Evolution is genetic mutation through natural selection. Is something killing off the flu virus such that it requires a mutation to a human-accepted form to prolong itself? I think it's just genetic mutation. But not evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:22 pm |
|
|
| lobf |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 29 Jul 2004 |
| Posts: 1076 |
Age:92
|
| Gender: |
| Location: LA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Will wrote: | | Is it really evolving? Evolution is genetic mutation through natural selection. Is something killing off the flu virus such that it requires a mutation to a human-accepted form to prolong itself? I think it's just genetic mutation. But not evolution. |
This is exactly the problem that most people have grasping with evolution.
When things reproduce, the strands of DNA that contain all of their genetic information unwind to be copied. When they wind up again, a lot of the strands re-combine in different orders, resulting in genetic mutations, which produce slightly different offspring.
The offspring with traits that help them survive better than others are able to reproduce, while the others are not able to reproduce. For example, it's like when you get antibiotics from the doc: You have to keep taking them even after your symptoms are gone. Why? Because you've killed off the weak ones. The ones that are left are the strong bacteria. They live to reproduce, thus creating an entire population of (slightly) different bacteria. Over time, this can lead to entirely different populations.
And Mathguy: Evolution is Evolution. There's not "micro" and "big sized". All evolution happens at a microscopic level. We just see its results. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:39 pm |
|
|
| Will |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 06 Apr 2005 |
| Posts: 741 |
Age:19
|
| Gender: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| lobf wrote: | | When things reproduce, the strands of DNA that contain all of their genetic information unwind to be copied. When they wind up again, a lot of the strands re-combine in different orders, resulting in genetic mutations, which produce slightly different offspring. |
Ok. I think our argument is actually purely semantics. I didn't realize evolution could also be applied outside natural selection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:42 pm |
|
|
| Couchie |
|
 |
| |
| Joined: 12 Jan 2004 |
| Posts: 7311 |
Age:21
|
| Gender: |
| Location: Nowhere but Canada. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| lobf wrote: | | Will wrote: | | Is it really evolving? Evolution is genetic mutation through natural selection. Is something killing off the flu virus such that it requires a mutation to a human-accepted form to prolong itself? I think it's just genetic mutation. But not evolution. |
This is exactly the problem that most people have grasping with evolution.
When things reproduce, the strands of DNA that contain all of their genetic information unwind to be copied. When they wind up again, a lot of the strands re-combine in different orders, resulting in genetic mutations, which produce slightly different offspring.
The offspring with traits that help them survive better than others are able to reproduce, while the others are not able to reproduce. For example, it's like when you get antibiotics from the doc: You have to keep taking them even after your symptoms are gone. Why? Because you've killed off the weak ones. The ones that are left are the strong bacteria. They live to reproduce, thus creating an entire population of (slightly) different bacteria. Over time, this can lead to entirely different populations.
And Mathguy: Evolution is Evolution. There's not "micro" and "big sized". All evolution happens at a microscopic level. We just see its results. |
I don't think creationists have a problem with evolution. They have a problem with those who claim that evolution occurs to the massive extent that some scientists claim. If you want to believe that they eye was created by DNA copying out mistakes, then have fun with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:06 pm |
|
|
| Will |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 06 Apr 2005 |
| Posts: 741 |
Age:19
|
| Gender: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Couchie wrote: | | They have a problem with those who claim that evolution occurs to the massive extent that some scientists claim. |
Um... well... if evolution occurs in one animal... it's bound to occur in other animals simply for them to continue to coexist on the same part of the food chain. What exactly do you mean by massive extent?
| Quote: | | If you want to believe that they eye was created by DNA copying out mistakes, then have fun with that. |
There is no such thing as a mistake in DNA (well not really). Just disadvantages. The eye started out extremely primitive and whenever a change was made to it that benefitted the species, it stuck around through reproduction. There is evidence of various stages of eye evolution all over the animal kingdom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:35 pm |
|
|
| Couchie |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 12 Jan 2004 |
| Posts: 7311 |
Age:21
|
| Gender: |
| Location: Nowhere but Canada. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Will wrote: | | Couchie wrote: | | They have a problem with those who claim that evolution occurs to the massive extent that some scientists claim. |
Um... well... if evolution occurs in one animal... it's bound to occur in other animals simply for them to continue to coexist on the same part of the food chain. What exactly do you mean by massive extent? |
Basically, believing we all evolved from a DNA strand, or other prokaryotic protocell.
| Will wrote: | | Quote: | | If you want to believe that they eye was created by DNA copying out mistakes, then have fun with that. |
There is no such thing as a mistake in DNA (well not really). |
Mutation is - literally - mistake. The DNA needs to replicate thosands of different combinations, and every so often, a mistake is made and the wrong combination is copied out. If this mistake proves useful, it's then passed on through natural selection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:12 pm |
|
|
| lobf |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 29 Jul 2004 |
| Posts: 1076 |
Age:92
|
| Gender: |
| Location: LA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Exactly. So you believe in evolution? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:45 pm |
|
|
| GunnySkox |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 15 Jul 2004 |
| Posts: 747 |
|
| Gender: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:29 am |
|
|
| TheMathGuy |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 30 May 2005 |
| Posts: 374 |
Age:24
|
| Gender: |
| Location: Sunny California |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Will wrote: | | Is it really evolving? Evolution is genetic mutation through natural selection. Is something killing off the flu virus such that it requires a mutation to a human-accepted form to prolong itself? I think it's just genetic mutation. But not evolution. |
Exhibit A. Certain bateria is now "resistant" to some of our drugs.
Of course, if this "resistant strain" was introduced to some of the "non-resistant" strain in a controlled environment, the orginal non-resistant strain will dominate. It's usually not a good thing to mutate. It may cause "resistance" to certain drugs, but it makes the bacteria significantly weaker than it's orginal predecessor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:31 am |
|
|
| TheMathGuy |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 30 May 2005 |
| Posts: 374 |
Age:24
|
| Gender: |
| Location: Sunny California |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Will wrote: | | Is it really evolving? Evolution is genetic mutation through natural selection. Is something killing off the flu virus such that it requires a mutation to a human-accepted form to prolong itself? I think it's just genetic mutation. But not evolution. |
Exhibit A. Certain bateria is now "resistant" to some of our drugs.
Of course, if this "resistant strain" was introduced to some of the "non-resistant" strain in a controlled environment, the orginal non-resistant strain will dominate. It's usually not a good thing to mutate. It may cause "resistance" to certain drugs, but it makes the bacteria significantly weaker than it's orginal predecessor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:33 am |
|
|
| Dale |
|
 |
| |
| Joined: 23 May 2004 |
| Posts: 1733 |
Age:25
|
| Gender: |
| Location: Melbourne, Australia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| lobf wrote: | | And Mathguy: Evolution is Evolution. There's not "micro" and "big sized". All evolution happens at a microscopic level. We just see its results. |
I believe that he meant micro-evolution over macro-evolution.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Micro-evolution)
Jump to: navigation, search
Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level. These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Biologists distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a long period of time (and may culminate in the evolution of new species).
Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have become resistant to antibiotics. Because microevolution can be observed directly, both pro-evolution and some anti-evolution groups agree that it is a fact of life.
Macroevolution is the concept that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time.
(whole article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution )
Micro-evolution is not discounted - it includes natural selection/survival of the fittest - the fit live and the unfit don't live to produce offspring (or have less chance) thus the fittest (with the best DNA strands) go on to produce children. This means (in this case) that if the bird flu goes into humans, that it has a greater chance of survival, it can attack both the birds and the humans, thus if the birds were to die out, the mutated virus would survive, and the non-mutated version would die out.
This is not evolution, it is just survival of the fittest - which is a wheel in the machine of evolution (I do not believe in evolution (macro) but I do believe in survival of the fittest (micro) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:26 pm |
|
|
| lobf |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 29 Jul 2004 |
| Posts: 1076 |
Age:92
|
| Gender: |
| Location: LA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Survival of the fittest is evolution... It means that the animals that had the ability to survive and reproduce passed those abilities to their offspring, thereby changing the population (albeit slightly... but over time those slight changes add up) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:30 am |
|
|
| Dale |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 23 May 2004 |
| Posts: 1733 |
Age:25
|
| Gender: |
| Location: Melbourne, Australia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| lobf wrote: | | Survival of the fittest is evolution... It means that the animals that had the ability to survive and reproduce passed those abilities to their offspring, thereby changing the population (albeit slightly... but over time those slight changes add up) |
Not exactly. Survival of the fittest means that the fit live, and the unfit (or the ones with the bad DNA or bad genes) die out, lessening the chance of bad genes/DNA to enter the gene pool. However, there may be situations where better DNA or genes come into play, (even though there has never been any information added when there is a mutation, generally information that stops the function from replicating is lost or damaged (ie your eyes, people who have a third eye like a cyclops mix human have lost or had their eye growth stopping gene damaged))
Your statement would be correct if information is added to a species that helps that species to become stronger/faster/smarter etc, but generally survival of the fittest is a way for mother nature to ensure that animals don't die out easily. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
