Login

Join for Free!
118906 members


Macroevolution-Do people come from apes?

Debate and discussion of any biological questions not pertaining to a particular topic.

Moderator: BioTeam

Huh

Postby Inuyasha » Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:42 pm

How can you be a biologist and not believe in evolution? That is the fundation of biology.
Ty Guo
pronounced tiger
User avatar
Inuyasha
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:15 pm
Location: NEW YORK

Postby Solid Snake » Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:48 pm

You can observe the changes animals have gone through in short periods of time with the records we have from biologists in various centuries. How can you think that these changes werent compounded over millions of years
Poor Johnny Sasaki.
!
-Solid Snake
Solid Snake
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:02 pm
Location: Exton is where it's at

Off-track

Postby Cyranian » Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:15 pm

Inu, there are biologists out there who believes in every single word of the Bible, and there are also priests who thinks that evolution might be true. There are different people with different interests in this world.
There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
User avatar
Cyranian
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:11 pm
Location: States


Postby biostudent84 » Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:33 pm

Please be careful with the religious arguments...Chris and I were in a HUGE debate a few weeks ago on this subject and nothing got done. Unfortunately, Chris, our creationistic biologist is no longer here as a result of that. Admin and I went back and deleted the more hostile arguments from that.

We're here to share information and help others...not debate theology =D

Kyle
User avatar
biostudent84
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:00 am
Location: Farmville, VA

Postby junkyarddawg » Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:33 pm

Why does everyone frame evolution in terms of "selecting" for survival features.? It is just as easily described as a "culling " process. Nature removes those without the right mix of characteristics needed at any given point of time. Then the only ones left to reproduce are the ones with whatever attributes fit with the current environmental system.
junkyarddawg
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:59 pm

Postby biostudent84 » Mon Dec 27, 2004 1:47 am

"Culling" usually is used to describe selection for a specific purpose. One scientist I've studied heavily opposes the idea that evolution is a process that changes species for specific purposes. Evolution is only the result of natural processes allowing better adapted for survival to reproduce.

Evolution doesn't wake up in the morning and say, "I want a monkey with a bright orange butt." Any trait that evolution selects for is simply a process that by which those orange butt monkeys are better able to reproduce.
User avatar
biostudent84
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:00 am
Location: Farmville, VA

Postby RobJim » Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:17 pm

A species has of a fixed number of genes; each one is like a multiple-choice question, like "what color eyes does this organism have?"

There are observed mechanisms by which genes can be copied, so that an animal might have two copies of the same gene.

There are also mechanisms by which genes can be changed.

Combine the two and you get "new genes being created".

Mutating stop codons can increase the length of a gene, which could be interpreted as an increase in complexity.

Retroviruses stick new genes into the genomes of organisms.

These are the sorts of things that can cause a simpler organism to evolve into a more compex one.
RobJim
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:54 am

Postby keldo » Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:53 pm

It is a proven fact that most mutations are bad. So when a new trait enters the gene pool by mutation most likely it will be a bad one.
keldo
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:51 pm

Postby keldo » Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:55 pm

Also you were talking about how evolution wasn't solely based on mutations. What other things is evolution based on.
keldo
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:51 pm

Postby keldo » Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:59 pm

One more think I can't understand about evolution is since human cells are very complex and interdependent then how did the first cell that started evolution form eventually into the human cell. How can something so simple make something so complex when one element needs another to deveope?
keldo
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:51 pm

Postby mith » Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:49 pm

Where can genes also be acquired from other than mutations:

If you look at bacteria, they swap genes with each other and thus can acquire new traits without sex/mutations. Also if a virus attacks our sperm/egg cells we may pass diffent genes to an offspring.

How can independent cells evolve to become interdependent and specialized:

First off, independent cells can take advantage of their surroundings. If we look at barnacles and some other simple life forms such as jelly fish, the individual cells are very independent but they do work collectively. Notice that only some of the barnacles cling to the anchor and others build themselves into long strands.

Second, interdependent organisms might fuse into one. If you look at a plant cell it contains a motile cell, a cyanobateria(chloroplast), mitochondrion, and a protist nucleus all fused together to form a single organism. Examine a lichen and you might see a fungus and a photosynthetic organism bonding. In the future they may merge into a single organism.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby RobJim » Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:49 pm

Keldo -

It is a proven fact that most mutations are bad. So when a new trait enters the gene pool by mutation most likely it will be a bad one.

This is true. The process of natural selection will weed these traits out of the gene pool.

One more think I can't understand about evolution is since human cells are very complex and interdependent then how did the first cell that started evolution form eventually into the human cell. How can something so simple make something so complex when one element needs another to deveope?

Mithrilhack has most of the answer. However, you bring up the idea that each element needs each other, so they must have been created simultaneously. The Theory of Evolution challenges this idea. Do you have a specific example you'd like me to address?
Rob the Chemicool Mod
Wikipedia and Google are your friends!
Visit the Chemicool forums for all your chemistry needs:
http://www.chemicool.com/forum/
RobJim
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:54 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests