23rd December 2005, 1:13 PM
I knew you'd eventually find it. Now take a look at why it was disproven. Pretty lame way of disproving something dont you think? "We cant cause it to happen."
This means that human beings cannot find a way to send the knowledge and personal traits of a living thing in to the development of its offspring or another living thing.... right? :D
That's the best part. We did prove that it can be done on a very simple level, we feed the brain of an animal to another animal of its kind and that animal acquires its traits and knowledge. But we cant find where in the DNA this stuff is kept, so since we cant find it (it should be noted, we have not completely mapped any DNA of any complex organisms 100%) we see the most obvious choice - mutation.
Mutation is 99.9% of the time lethal. Tiny changes (which are still huge on a genetic scale), as I said, often lead to obstruction of progression over time as the genes are inter-bred with other mutated genes or even healthy genes. I agree that this is a type of 'evolution' but it's more of a circumstancial thing that all living things have to take in to account. Which is why all living things are programmed to only find the healthy ones attractive. The healthier you are, the more they want to make a baby with you. Females are almost always healthier than males because their genes are more 'true'. Remember Jurassic Park? All living things are female until at early development the fetus is altered. That alteration is imperfect and usually very nasty, more male babies are born with birth defects than females, etc. So because of this, the males are the ones that always have to prove how healthy they are to the females.
This is nature trying to AVOID retardation and mutation, no living thing will seek out a retarded or mutated mate. We know this, in any group of animals if the animal has an 'off' trait such as malformed legs it will be killed or, in higher mammals, allowed to live in the society but withdrawn from mating rituals. It's found time and time again of structures of ape families where a mutated or defected ape will not be allowed to mate with females. The whole tribe gets on him and beats him off the females no matter how hard he tries because they instinctively know that he will dirty the gene pool and cause that entire tribe to lose their gene pool eventually leading to extinction. In lower mammals like mice, they have no problem with killing off an entire litter of pups if they possess bad genes. Mice are 'older' and more adapted to existence, so they are much, MUCH more involved with the gene pool cleansing.
And what was that about cancer not being passed on in the genes? Are you sure you want to claim that? :D Of course it is, if your dad got prostrate cancer when he was 45, you have a pretty good chance of getting it around the same age. If you dont get it, it's still there in the genes, and your son may get it, or his son, etc. Until the gene can eventually be wiped out by intoducing healthier genes from the females as they progress.
You're very close. Look at some cultures around the world and look more specifically at certain towns. If the town had a huge mining export business that's been going on for hundreds of years but has since stopped, those people are adapted to it. They have more lubricant produced in the eyes than 'average people' they have sturdier bones, more resistant skin and its all extremely subtle however it's passed on to the baby. People continue to be born with 'miners genes' even though mining has stopped in the passed generation or two. Why is this? The same can be found in animals all over the world. Did you watch Animal Planet last night? They were showing the drunk monkeys from costa rica. This a group of monkeys that steal alchohol from tourists in the open bars. I studied these little guys for years and get this: They're actually born with higher resistances to acohols and the same gene found in human beings of european decent that dictates alchoholism not present in most people of mongoloid decent.
Why? because of doing something over and over, the body will try to compensate so that whatever that action is gets easier to do for the animal. If you have a job where you move alot of heavy furniture your fingers will spread and became thicker making grabbing easier. The opposite is that if you play an instrument your fingers will become thinner and with more dexterity and this is somehow passed on. My sister has thicker fingers, my mom has short fingers, my dad has thicker fingers as well - no one in my family all the way back to great great grandparents played a musical instrument and yet I play 8 different instruments, leaning more to piano and keyboard and I compose music. My fingers are long and I have alot of dexterity. But all my genes tell my body I should have thicker 'working man's' hands but I dont. But after working on a film set for 3 months where i need alot of stregth in my hands you can actually see the finger tips spreading out becoming thicker and stronger and all of these things can be passed on. So here I am, a musician, in a family gene pool of non-musicians... of which all of them enjoy singing. The gene that allows the brain to hear slight variation and depth of sound is present in all living things however its level of complexity differs and my family has it on a large scale. Why does it differ? It's the same reason why some people love listening to music and some people dont.
If you drink alot, you gain a resistence, the same is applied to disease. If you had chicken pox once, you'll never get it again. The body evolved. The difference is that things of a complex working nature cannot be dictated by DNA, it needs a catalyst, however the stregth of the body's immune system can be. So if you already had chicken pox your kid will still be able to get it, but he will also be able to get over it faster when just a few hundred years ago it was lethal. Our bodies are recording what we do and trying to make things easier for us because that is the entire point to progression.
I guess you didn't do any more research on walking sticks but a really awesome thing was found: They found a walking stick that could fly which is not uncommon, but the fact that it was recorded just a few hundred years ago without wings raised many eyebrows. This creature suddenly gained the ability to fly in this region, a little more research would uncover that this creature had the ability to fly before... then got rid of it, then brought it back... and did this 3 more times through it's evolution. They tried to figure out why and it turns out that the walking stick had spikes in population and every time it spiked down the creature would give birth to winged walking sticks so that they can leave the area and find more waliing sticks to repopulate. As soon as the spike was corrected, they start producing wingless walking sticks again. This is not random and has nothing to do with mutation. As the population went down, the gene pool became thinner to the point of being dangerous (mom's with sons, sisters with brothers, etc) which would mean eventual extinction. So when the sticks mated and the genetic material was introduced to eachother the body viewed it as a warning sign and dipped in to prior unused genes that have a larger population growth (as dictated by the 'rings') so it gives the new generation these 'high population' genes in an effort to save its existence. Once the gene pool reached levels that were acceptable for the walking stick to survive the gene is turned back off and suddenly walking sticks are wingless again almost over night. Why return back to wingless? Because the wingless walking sticks have a harder carapace and are more likely to survive an attack and nothing detracts from camoflage more than doing something the object you're trying to immitate cant do. :D
This is more of a social change but it's dictated by a physical change in the animal. this is called a 'controlled geneology', and its found in many living things, when the animal faces extinction, it dips in to previously unused genes with higher population growth (larger gene pools were present) in order to sustain survival of the species.
You're extremely close, try cross referencing the ideals of evolution and what it's history is, why it became accepted (or not accepted) and the changes it's gone through (and why those changes were added). You'll get a pretty good idea of why people want to use random mutation as the catalyst to natural selection (or vice versa) and I think you'll be surprised why the 'random but ordered' theory exists.
This means that human beings cannot find a way to send the knowledge and personal traits of a living thing in to the development of its offspring or another living thing.... right? :D
That's the best part. We did prove that it can be done on a very simple level, we feed the brain of an animal to another animal of its kind and that animal acquires its traits and knowledge. But we cant find where in the DNA this stuff is kept, so since we cant find it (it should be noted, we have not completely mapped any DNA of any complex organisms 100%) we see the most obvious choice - mutation.
Mutation is 99.9% of the time lethal. Tiny changes (which are still huge on a genetic scale), as I said, often lead to obstruction of progression over time as the genes are inter-bred with other mutated genes or even healthy genes. I agree that this is a type of 'evolution' but it's more of a circumstancial thing that all living things have to take in to account. Which is why all living things are programmed to only find the healthy ones attractive. The healthier you are, the more they want to make a baby with you. Females are almost always healthier than males because their genes are more 'true'. Remember Jurassic Park? All living things are female until at early development the fetus is altered. That alteration is imperfect and usually very nasty, more male babies are born with birth defects than females, etc. So because of this, the males are the ones that always have to prove how healthy they are to the females.
This is nature trying to AVOID retardation and mutation, no living thing will seek out a retarded or mutated mate. We know this, in any group of animals if the animal has an 'off' trait such as malformed legs it will be killed or, in higher mammals, allowed to live in the society but withdrawn from mating rituals. It's found time and time again of structures of ape families where a mutated or defected ape will not be allowed to mate with females. The whole tribe gets on him and beats him off the females no matter how hard he tries because they instinctively know that he will dirty the gene pool and cause that entire tribe to lose their gene pool eventually leading to extinction. In lower mammals like mice, they have no problem with killing off an entire litter of pups if they possess bad genes. Mice are 'older' and more adapted to existence, so they are much, MUCH more involved with the gene pool cleansing.
And what was that about cancer not being passed on in the genes? Are you sure you want to claim that? :D Of course it is, if your dad got prostrate cancer when he was 45, you have a pretty good chance of getting it around the same age. If you dont get it, it's still there in the genes, and your son may get it, or his son, etc. Until the gene can eventually be wiped out by intoducing healthier genes from the females as they progress.
You're very close. Look at some cultures around the world and look more specifically at certain towns. If the town had a huge mining export business that's been going on for hundreds of years but has since stopped, those people are adapted to it. They have more lubricant produced in the eyes than 'average people' they have sturdier bones, more resistant skin and its all extremely subtle however it's passed on to the baby. People continue to be born with 'miners genes' even though mining has stopped in the passed generation or two. Why is this? The same can be found in animals all over the world. Did you watch Animal Planet last night? They were showing the drunk monkeys from costa rica. This a group of monkeys that steal alchohol from tourists in the open bars. I studied these little guys for years and get this: They're actually born with higher resistances to acohols and the same gene found in human beings of european decent that dictates alchoholism not present in most people of mongoloid decent.
Why? because of doing something over and over, the body will try to compensate so that whatever that action is gets easier to do for the animal. If you have a job where you move alot of heavy furniture your fingers will spread and became thicker making grabbing easier. The opposite is that if you play an instrument your fingers will become thinner and with more dexterity and this is somehow passed on. My sister has thicker fingers, my mom has short fingers, my dad has thicker fingers as well - no one in my family all the way back to great great grandparents played a musical instrument and yet I play 8 different instruments, leaning more to piano and keyboard and I compose music. My fingers are long and I have alot of dexterity. But all my genes tell my body I should have thicker 'working man's' hands but I dont. But after working on a film set for 3 months where i need alot of stregth in my hands you can actually see the finger tips spreading out becoming thicker and stronger and all of these things can be passed on. So here I am, a musician, in a family gene pool of non-musicians... of which all of them enjoy singing. The gene that allows the brain to hear slight variation and depth of sound is present in all living things however its level of complexity differs and my family has it on a large scale. Why does it differ? It's the same reason why some people love listening to music and some people dont.
If you drink alot, you gain a resistence, the same is applied to disease. If you had chicken pox once, you'll never get it again. The body evolved. The difference is that things of a complex working nature cannot be dictated by DNA, it needs a catalyst, however the stregth of the body's immune system can be. So if you already had chicken pox your kid will still be able to get it, but he will also be able to get over it faster when just a few hundred years ago it was lethal. Our bodies are recording what we do and trying to make things easier for us because that is the entire point to progression.
I guess you didn't do any more research on walking sticks but a really awesome thing was found: They found a walking stick that could fly which is not uncommon, but the fact that it was recorded just a few hundred years ago without wings raised many eyebrows. This creature suddenly gained the ability to fly in this region, a little more research would uncover that this creature had the ability to fly before... then got rid of it, then brought it back... and did this 3 more times through it's evolution. They tried to figure out why and it turns out that the walking stick had spikes in population and every time it spiked down the creature would give birth to winged walking sticks so that they can leave the area and find more waliing sticks to repopulate. As soon as the spike was corrected, they start producing wingless walking sticks again. This is not random and has nothing to do with mutation. As the population went down, the gene pool became thinner to the point of being dangerous (mom's with sons, sisters with brothers, etc) which would mean eventual extinction. So when the sticks mated and the genetic material was introduced to eachother the body viewed it as a warning sign and dipped in to prior unused genes that have a larger population growth (as dictated by the 'rings') so it gives the new generation these 'high population' genes in an effort to save its existence. Once the gene pool reached levels that were acceptable for the walking stick to survive the gene is turned back off and suddenly walking sticks are wingless again almost over night. Why return back to wingless? Because the wingless walking sticks have a harder carapace and are more likely to survive an attack and nothing detracts from camoflage more than doing something the object you're trying to immitate cant do. :D
This is more of a social change but it's dictated by a physical change in the animal. this is called a 'controlled geneology', and its found in many living things, when the animal faces extinction, it dips in to previously unused genes with higher population growth (larger gene pools were present) in order to sustain survival of the species.
You're extremely close, try cross referencing the ideals of evolution and what it's history is, why it became accepted (or not accepted) and the changes it's gone through (and why those changes were added). You'll get a pretty good idea of why people want to use random mutation as the catalyst to natural selection (or vice versa) and I think you'll be surprised why the 'random but ordered' theory exists.