Discussion of all aspects of cellular structure, physiology and communication.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

User avatar
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:36 pm

Post by LilKim » Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:26 pm

So I realized that I didn't address your particular points:

"we don’t have like a 2 headed bird of some weird spices that is like human but look a bit different like 6 fingers or toes I’m sure people with 6 or 3 fingers can all so survive as good as 5 fingers."

A bird having 2 heads would probably have an aerodynamics problem... and would easily become prey to a predator (and become extinct). However I remember reading about a two headed species of reptile (?? as a child) that would use it's heads to confuse it's prey.

As far as fingers and toes... There are plenty of people around who are born with +/- 10 fingers and toes. It's actually much more common than you think (parents can often opt to have an extra toes or fingers removed shorty after a child is born that way ... ) Also, there are plenty of people who have 2 fingers "ectrodactyly" ( ... and they are just fine. So finger number? Yeah, I don't know why most people have 10 fingers and toes .

"So I say for a human to evolve there must be countless numbers of imperfect humans much much more than perfect humans. Even in today’s time if we are still evolving. There must me billions and billions of imperfect proteins and enzymes and unfinished genes and I don’t see a device in human body that alters dna so I cant believe my eyes area formed by chance"

In fact there ARE countless numbers of "imperfect" humans ... The reason why we don't see them walking around is because they die prematurely (before birth or shortly thereafter). I used to work in a clinical cytogenetic laboratory where people would send their dead-fetus, hoping for some insignt into WHY it died. And, more than 50% of the time, there was a severe genetic abnormality (ie. imperfection) .. which resulted in morphologically abnormal-looking babies that died due to their "genetic problems"...

So why don't we see these strange-looking 'people'? Normally, women will often "lose" these types of pregnancies due to fetal death (ie. due to loss or gain of genes, or mutated/non-functional metabolic protiens).. or some unknown mechanism by which the mothers 'body' selectively eliminates a fetus that isn't perfect. (which has been observed due mothers more-frequently "losing" the genetically-abnormal fetus while pregnant with fraternal twins.)

So, just because you don't see alot of abnormal people walking around doesn't mean that mutations that give rise to evolution doesn't exist. It just meant that most mutations result in an un-fit human.. that die very early-on (and that's why you REALLY don't see people with 2 heads).

BUt the bottom line is that i'm not trying to force my opinions on anyone ... I just believe in being openminded, enought to make conclusions based on what YOU know (and not what others tell you)

Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:48 pm

Post by mehdi71000 » Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:57 pm

well I think the person from age of 18 + is capable of making babies but loss of eye sight starts at over 30+ I say TV is the problem because if your eye stops to focus on close and near things that’s when the lens muscles become lazy and the person is end up with bad eye sight. You can blame the small house TV type of work you do and magazines. If I was Native American I would need to look at distance trees and land so my eye is more active to focus to near objects like my food or far like my cows or bear etc...
My teacher told me when you’re at your computer look at distance objects so your eye doesn’t become weak.
Another thing is we are designed to die. Even bacteria. You might say because our ancestors never lived to be 30+ so body can’t cope but whales die so as great white shark and element etc
How ever if what you’re saying is true maybe that’s why they said there is a lockless monster. But I think they die too

Evolving does exist. Like bacteria become resistant to some medication. But how is done is a mystery to me.
and if 50% of humans die out of genetic imperfections i say some humans are designed to evolve and some rant. Because if they were to evolve they would have that (for example)6 fingers and toes. And one question why humans have hair or eyebrows and mustash and beard? They do get in the way
i say there is a designer. The imperfections are only errors in the software.
if you have more population you see more imperfections. We are designed to see the difference. if you see a room full of black butter flies. And 2 white butter flies you will focus on the white ones same as room full of white butter flies and few black ones. There are 4 babies born every second I doubt 2 have genetic problems.
Maybe evolution is act of god? Like we are still under construction and in religions they say we are being tested. Maybe this is the case. We are in a test for more advanced species. Or aliens are responsible who knows? In this big universe we cant be the only ones? Maybe we are like lab mice to them since they are well advanced. :shock:
I don’t mind evolving not at all but some times its used in most silliest situation. I not implying on chromosome theory by Lilkim not at all. Evolution could be who knows. I don’t play too much lottery anyways

Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:16 pm

Post by lg1 » Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:35 pm

Like many superficially reasonable just-so stories about the effects of evolution on human beings (viz. eugenics), the idea that eyeglasses are degrading the human gene pool is not valid. I don’t know what news media have claimed about corrective lenses and genetics, but this is from a peer-reviewed journal:

“Corrective lenses were invented far too recently to have allowed a substantial increase in genes that cause myopia. This argument is supported by the dramatic myopia increase in native groups newly subjected to formal education in childhood (Young et al., 1969).” From “The Dawn of Darwinian Medicine,” George C. Williams; Randolph M. Nesse, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 66, No. 1. (Mar., 1991), pp. 1-22.

Myopia is strongly heritable, but only develops when the eyes are used for much close work (e.g., reading) in childhood. The global increase in spectacles-wearing is not a result of eyeglasses frustrating natural selection and so degrading the human gene pool, but of cultural practices activating a preexisting genetic potential.

Astonishingly, the above-cited paper was cited in 1998 (in “The future of genetic epidemiology,” by Schork, Cardon, and Xu, Trends in Genetics, 1998 V. 14 N. 7.) as sole support for the claim that “Poor vision would normally put one at a tremendous selective disadvantage, but the modern contrivance of corrective lenses has facilitated the maintenance of relevant myopia genes, and have led to a general weakening of visual capacities.” So strong is the bias, apparently, toward a crude adaptationism, that Schork et al. read Williams and Nesse as saying the exact opposite of what they really said. That way lies eugenics.

Another reminder, by the way, to trace one’s references back to primary sources whenever possible.



User avatar
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: London

Post by kotoreru » Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:12 pm

Sorry, I just came across this topic - has anyone mentioned polyploidy anywhere?

(the original topic, that is, not this Evolution debate)
"What are humans if they don't learn at University? Animals, yes."

^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests