Origins of life

[deostroll]

I want to know about things like


phenotype
gene pool
fitness
altruism


I could easily ask it in other places out here. But I thought I ask it out here anyway so that they are "here"...

[AstusAleator]

Eh, places like wikipedia can help you understand terminology. Also, doing a search through the forum will reveal many discussions on each of these terms I'm sure.

Way to bring up a dead thread though

[mith]

Way to feed it lol

[deostroll]

I thought I'd do a research on these terms, but there is no logical map or a syllabus at hand. I'd actually want to finally discuss about things life love and fear eventually. These reactions must be something naturally selected. Perhaps this is a point I've mentioned before. But now I see things with a new light.

There is a gene expansion program. Every gene has the desire to increase its trait in the gene pool. This could have resulted in polygamy. It could be that love arose out of the chaos this created. Of course the gene expansion program is logical. As long as one individual thinks that his or her trait is the one which dominates the society he or she has a better chance of survival. More offsoring that share common trait is something good according to that individual.

Now in a situation like this the offspring can attack its parent on account of sharing resources, etc. This is the chaos that might have resulted. To counter this the idea of love was born. I don't mean that it was originated all of a sudden. Rather it was existent but not that prominent. It could have got naturally selected from then on and survived the later generations. The idea that this is naturally selected makes sense: there are various forms of love - maternal love, patriotism, etc. All of these forms could have evolved.

It is a strange theory. I don't know if I've used the terms such as gene pool the way I should, however I have expressed an idea. What is your say?

[deostroll]

Similarly even fear could be something naturally selected...

[alextemplet]

As for love, I've read that we are genetically programmed to try to help those who are closely related to us because those individuals have the most genes similar to or identical to ours, so this is sort of an extension of procreating our genes directly. Polygamy is a way to increase the number of offspring we have, but that must be balanced against the need to support and raise those children so that they all have a chance to survival; this may be a possible biological reason for monogamy.

As for fear, I could see how that would be naturally selected for, especially in terms of being cautious of or avoiding danger.

[AstusAleator]

My suggestion would be to start a new thread on your topic. This particular thread really just needs to die.

[deostroll]

My suggestion would be to start a new thread on your topic. This particular thread really just needs to die.

I am considering it...trying to recap this thread. Once I create it I could use ur feedback too. Don't you think that this post has digressed into religion a bit? And none of us were actually were talking about the origin of life

But what were we talking about then?

Should I name the new topic as Origins of life: Part 2...?

[AstusAleator]

well, if you want to know about the things you listed above, you aren't looking for origins hypotheses, so I wouldn't name it so...

I'd name it Natural Selection, or something like that. The only reason this thread is so long and hairy is because "origins" tread on religious toes, which is something I would advise you to avoid. There have been plenty of conversations that have taken that path in this forum. You could probably spend a whole day or more reading all of them.

[deostroll]

Finally creating another thread to discuss life matters or rather natural selection matters...http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/viewtopic.php?t=9793

[charles brough]

Hello,

I've joined here a few minutes ago. I've no impression to give other people, other than letting you people know that I am NOT A BIO STUDENT. I'm a civil engg undergrad student from India. I've recently been taking an interest in biology.

But you know, for the past one year I've been thinking of survival (as in survival of the fittest). I've come to independently think that every species on this earth tries to satisfy a requirement of survival. Confusing?! Well, in other words, evolution progressed in such a manner so as to NOT kill us, but make us somehow survive (or live), and then increase our chances of further survival (or surviving further). Still confusing?! Well, I think it serves to convey my idea.

I really want some one to comment about this thought seriously. Can this be true?
-arun

I am surprised that this seems strange to you! I have never seen anyone or any living thing that was not striving to survive? What could be more natural? If we and other anmials did not strive to survive, we would not survive because we all compete for food and resources. We human population has increased over the thousands of years because we are successful in that. It would help if you read something about Robert Malthus and Charles Darwin.

You need to get used to the idea of populations growing and surviving because they successfully compete with other species. That is the way the world works and we all should appreciate nature for there is nothing else. There is so much to it that we can never learn it all.

charles,

[defenderoffaith]

Question: "Did the Israelites in the book of Exodus cross the Red Sea or the Reed Sea?"

Answer: The Hebrew word translated “red” in some 23 Old Testament verses dealing with the Exodus is the Hebrew word suph whose root is thought to be of Egyptian origin and meant a reed, especially the papyrus. So, while it is true that the Hebrew words yam suph can be translated “Sea of Reeds” or “Reed Sea,” the question that must be asked is, which is the best translation of the words to correctly convey the meaning of the Hebrew passages? Also, we must take into consideration whether these passages, most commonly translated “Red Sea,” are in fact referring to what today is known as the Red Sea or are they, as some liberal scholars assert, really referring to a marshy area by the Rea Sea or possibly some smaller, shallower lake nearby? This is crucial because, if it was not the Red Sea, then the Israelites could have crossed without God’s miraculous intervention of parting the sea and stopping the heavier Egyptian chariots. This is really the crux of the debate: did God miraculously intervene, as the Bible says He did, or was the crossing by the Israelites simply a natural event?

When we look at the many different passages in the Scripture where the term yam suph or “Red Sea” is used, it becomes very clear that it is correctly translated as “Red Sea” and is indeed referring to the large body of water commonly called the Red Sea or Gulf of Suez. The only way that one could look at these verses and believe they are speaking of some shallow lake or marshy area is if one has a preconceived bias towards that translation, ignoring not only the historical evidence but, more importantly, the scriptural context. The Scriptures give us a clear understanding that the body of water the Israelites crossed was a large and deep body of water, and the only one in that area fitting that description is the Red Sea.

One evidence that “Red Sea” is the correct translation and the correct body of water is found in the Greek Septuagint from 200 B.C. This is the earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible known, and the words yam suph are consistently translated with the Greek words eruthros thalassa or “Red Sea” (see Acts 7:36; Hebrews 11:29). Therefore, the historical evidence is that these words in the Bible do refer to the actual Red Sea and not some lesser body of water. Further evidence comes from the context of the passages themselves. First, the sea had to be deep enough to drown the Egyptian army and destroy their chariots. Those liberal scholars who want to say this is referring to some shallow, marshy area have to throw out the context of the passages or believe that a whole Egyptian army can be drowned in a couple of feet of water. Also, in 1 Kings 9:26 we see King Solomon building a fleet of ships on the shore of the Rea Sea in the land of Edom—hardly practical if the body of water known as the Red Sea is merely a marshy area or small shallow lake. Clearly, the body of water yam suph refers to can be none other than the Red Sea.

The context of the passages and the way the words yam suph have been translated throughout history make it clear that the Israelites did indeed cross the Red Sea, a 1,350-mile-long body of water extending from the Indian Ocean. In some places, the Red Sea is more than 7,200 feet deep and more than 100 miles wide. While the Israelites would have crossed the Red Sea in what is now known as the Gulf of Suez, this is the large body of water God supernaturally parted, and He used it to destroy the Egyptian army and allow the Israelites to pass safely through, just as the Scriptures describe.