Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Didn't Luxorien say that mutagens facilitate the appearance of resistance? If that could be shown for various cases with various mutagens, I would take it to be strong evidence.
It depends on whether you're talking about mutations to the genotype or mutations to the phenotype.
Speciation is related to hybridization. According to the biological species concept, separate species cannot produce viable hybrids. Why does this definition work? I'll give the best explanation with my current understanding.
An hybrid is kind of like a junk-yard car with incompatible parts. If you're combining Toyota parts, you might get something that works. If you're combining Toyota and Nissan parts, you're less likely to get a working car.
Anti-evolutionists think that successive mutations can't result in new adaptations. In other words, the populations can't evolve new parts. I have never heard the following concepts from an anti-evolutionist, but I'm presuming this to be what follows. When a population is separated geographically, the separated populations shouldn't evolve their own unique sets of parts (assuming the anti-evo viewpoint). That is, even though they may diverge genetically, the blue-print for optimal functioning shouldn't change. Thus genetic divergence shouldn't result in reduced hybrid viability, and the populations should always have the potential to merge back together.
Again, this is just what is IMO what we should expect to see if the anti-evolutionists are right. We could easily test this by separating an insect population for some time, then observing hybrid viability.
I'm sorry for moving your post to the second-to-last page, especially since it is more on the topic.
Considering my metaphor further, I suppose the "∅ beneficial" viewpoint would still be compatible with the idea that the original population contained Toyota parts, Nissan parts, and an intermediate group of Niss-yota parts that were lost during speciation.
In that case, the initial population should show a wide range of hybrid viability, and the separated populations should not produce hyrbids that consistently fall below that range of viability. Of course, hybrid viability would have to be measured with respect to non-hybrid viability to control for any increase/decrease in harmful mutations.
Genotype. Change in phenotype is the result of the mutation. There can be no "mutations to the phenotype" by definition...
If you have hours of time to waste going back through this ridiculously long thread, I started out saying most mutations were neutral. Then he brought up studies on bacteria that talked about most mutations being harmful. Toward the end, I was attempting to argue that most random errors do cause problems, but cellular mechanisms correct those errors (or cause the resulting piece of DNA to be so broken that it isn't viable) so that by the time you are looking at phenotypes, most mutations are neutral because many of the most harmful ones have been weeded out.
The answer to the question of the meaning of life and the Universe and everything is 67: the number of unique phylogenetic types that exist in the Universe. See “An Introduction to the future of Science with the Paradigm of Types”, which is located at http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/ts.pdf
Later revelations showed that the Miller-Urey experiment didn't simulate early Earth correctly.
In the recent series "Cosmos" with Neil deGrasse Tyson, he seems to think that the most likely origin of life is from comets. Interesting when you consider that not long ago the general consensus was that it was unlikely that any life existed other than that on Earth..
since when there is a consensus about the origin of life?
And by saying that the life comes from comets, you're just pushing the problem further away and further in time, but the question still remains. But it is true, that each comet/asteroid could have brought other compounds and when they mixed here, some pre-life could emerge.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
That's true, it isn't really answering the question of what is the origin of life and is really only considering what might be the origin of life on Earth.
I wasn't trying to say there is a consensus on the origin of life, but rather just saying that that is what was said in that documentary series by Neil deGrasse Tyson. He is an astronomist so his views may be slightly biased towards astronomical explanations. There are microorganisms though that can survive in some pretty extreme environments for long times.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests