Theory of Evolution

[metadigital]

methicillin- could it just have a beneficial mutation? or does it have a mutation of increase in information? can someone help guide me

 

I am so stubborn with this topic because if we can't prove prove what has evolved by adding new stuff like methicillin might have then how can we beleive in it? - this is a christian point of view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm still struggling to understand your question --

Does methicilin-restitance provide other benfits? Other than survival, you mean? I have no idea. I don't know what the individual parts of the resistence are -- whether it involves a faster mitosis rate or a sturdier neucleic barrier -- or whether it just laughs in the face of this puny fungal decendant.

 

The point is, to survive it needed to adapt this way. And life always adapts.

 

Roaches, crabs, scorpions, trilobites etc -- all the armoured anthropods -- will survive long past us mammals, they've been here on Earth for about 0.5 billion years (amongst the first creatures out of the sea), so us ephemeral homo sapiens sapiens, who have only been around less than a million years, and had any sort of society for 30 thousand years, can't even imagine the 60 million years back to when the dinosaurs died out.

 

There have been several massive kills of most exiting life on Earth. One was a couple of billion years ago (at the beginning of the Paleoproterozoic era, which is the beginning of the Proterozoic eon, the geological period starting 2.5 billion years ago; before the Cambrian explosion approximately 0.54 billion years ago,

[SteveThaiBinh]

Genetic engineering will create much fear leading to hate... all men will not be created "equal" anymore but will it matter? will it matter if we can save the earth with this power to create einstiens on a assembly line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What worries me most about genetic engineering is that it's a distraction which doesn't really solve any of the world's big problems.

 

The cost of taking our development out of the hands of God and/or evolution could be larger than we think. My first exposure to these ideas was in the movie Gattaca, I think. What psychological price is paid by someone who has been created to be another Einstein? To have that burden placed on you, and be unable to live up to it... We could be one of the last generations whose destinies weren't chosen for us by our parents. Perhaps future 'humans' will look back on this as the end of the Evolutionary Era.

[metadigital]

Will we (humans) continue to evolve in the future?  Surely with the advances in genetic engineering, cloning and so on, Darwinian evolution no longer applies to human beings.  Are we able to shape our own future development as a species, and are we responsible enough to do this?  What follows homo sapiens?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a tough call. Could we be our own demise? And from a religious perspective, would God allow us to do such things?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, humans are already unique in all creation ( :D ) in that they change their environment. Oh, okay beavers build damns , but humans build cities and deforest whole continents and pump enough of certain types of gas into the atmosphere to cause global warming and enough particulate matter into the air to cause global dimming; just as the Aztecs should serve as a poignant lesson in the consequences of terra-de-forming (their capital city was 100 square kilometers in area), and evidence of life's innate ability to adapt (try and find it now without satellite infravision under the canopy of some of the densest jungles in the world!).

[WITHTEETH]

Ok in regards to methicillin

A big reason chrstianity denies evolution is because supposedly there is no mutation with an increase in information, there might be a beneficial information swap/change but thats not adding more information(information-think of it as a sorta program code or dna i think....) there are also a decrease in mutaion information.

to get from plankton to human being we would still be similar to plankton without MORE mutation increase of information. maybe for a viurs to become immune it only has to change its information(its code), thats not adding new information though, its just changing it... am i making any sense? heres an article/post.mutation debate!

[WITHTEETH]

"My favorite example of a mutation producing new information involves a Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste. The new enzymes are very inefficient (having only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzymes), but do afford the bacteria a whole new ecological niche. They don't work at all on the bacterium's original food - carbohydrates. And this type of mutation has even happened more than once!"

[The Elite_elite]

Will we (humans) continue to evolve in the future?  Surely with the advances in genetic engineering, cloning and so on, Darwinian evolution no longer applies to human beings.  Are we able to shape our own future development as a species, and are we responsible enough to do this?  What follows homo sapiens?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a tough call. Could we be our own demise? And from a religious perspective, would God allow us to do such things?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, humans are already unique in all creation ( :D ) in that they change their environment. Oh, okay beavers build damns , but humans build cities and deforest whole continents and pump enough of certain types of gas into the atmosphere to cause global warming and enough particulate matter into the air to cause global dimming; just as the Aztecs should serve as a poignant lesson in the consequences of terra-de-forming (their capital city was 100 square kilometers in area), and evidence of life's innate ability to adapt (try and find it now without satellite infravision under the canopy of some of the densest jungles in the world!).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I forgot that we humans are evil just for building places for us to live and trying to make our lives nicer. Don't forget that there isn't the possibility that global warming doesn't exist or that we humans are always the cause of it and if it weren't for us the world would be much better.

[metadigital]

"My favorite example of a mutation producing new information involves a Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste. The new enzymes are very inefficient (having only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzymes), but do afford the bacteria a whole new ecological niche. They don't work at all on the bacterium's original food - carbohydrates. And this type of mutation has even happened more than once!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, without reading the entire thread you have linked, I would say that all the organisms that exist now (apart from sponges and some bacteria) are mutations with added value. All life practically died at the beginning of the Proterozoic eon, 2.5 billion years ago (it might have been higher than 90%, say 98%, I don't remember the exact figure, I read about it fifteen years ago).

 

So everything we have today comes from those few single cell organisms.

 

If I have time I'll read the thread and comment further.

[Archmonarch]

Actually, some scientists believe squids will evolve into the dominant life form of Earth.

 

www.thefutureiswild.com

[WITHTEETH]

Thank u metadigitla, that would be great

[metadigital]

Yes, I forgot that we humans are evil just for building places for us to live and trying to make our lives nicer.  Don't forget that there isn't the possibility that global warming doesn't exist or that we humans are always the cause of it and if it weren't for us the world would be much better. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, interesting pov. Global Dimming is the process whereby particulate pollution adheres to the ice crystals in cloud formations. It is a direct result of the buring of distilate fossil fuels. It is possibly the cause of the famine in Ethiopia twenty years ago that we all donated money to in Live Aid.

 

What happens is the particulate matter adheres to the water crystals. this gives the crystals more surface area to precipitate onto. The net affect of this is that more of the sun's radiation is absorbed by the cloud-pollution mix, causing a diffusion of heating that can change global weather patterns, like moving the monsoons over North Africa north and avoiding the crops of the poor farmers there.

 

Evidence of the Global Dimming phenomena was first uncovered by a couple of Australian scientists who noticed that some fifty-year-old calculations for heating a given quantity of water with solar radiation were not consistent. What they discovered led them to analyze the clouds and build a weather model.

 

The scary thing is that Global Dimming actually minimises the effects of Global Warming.

 

You may be right, there may be a natural upswing in global temperature due to some geological timeframe; but the fact that 25% of the world's population is using 85% of the resorces, and China and India are only just beginning to industrialise using fossil fuels, coupled with the fact that greenhouse gases are on a cycle of decades, means that we should not be complacent. Oh, and there aren't any scientists that don't believe in global warming as a result of fossil fuel use. Only the US government actually persists in this fiction, like the tobacco companies usd to insist that there was no proven link between smoking and lung cancer (even though their own researchers quashed attempts to market a "safer cigarette" in the 60s as it would naturally lead people to conclude there was such a thing as "unsafe cigarettes") -- sustainable development is only a more costly method of production because the true costs are not factored in.

 

If I build a hose with bricks and particle board and render like a modern builder in a developed country does, this is a totally different cost model to creating the bricks from mud and baking them in a kiln and waiting for them to set and chopping soem trees down and waiting for the wood to set and smithing some nails from freshly smeltered iron ore.

 

It also doesn't behoove the developed countries to act irresponsibly on global environmental issues, because the developing world is about to multiply the problem (or hopefully the solutions).

[taks]

hmmm... ok, first, there is a common misconception that evolution is purposeful. it is not. evolution is an accident, for lack of a more descriptive term. this has an extreme impact on the entire discussion, points of which are mentioned within this thread, but not fully detailed.

 

first, why evolution is referred to as an "accident"... essentially, some mutation happens in any number or perhaps only one organism in a sample. realistically, at any given time in any given sample of some organism, there are likely a large number of simultaneous mutations in existence. most of these occur in the "junk" dna, so have little effect on the livelihood of the organism. some, however, occur in areas that impact the development of the organism. in either case, these random mutations either survive or they don't in the face of some otherwise life extinguishing occurrence. in the end, those that have the mutation allowing the organism to survive a fatal situation are the only ones to survive and pass on their genes... an accident at best.

 

many of these mutations are of no benefit to the organism. some may even be fatal, in which case the gene pool will end with that organism. some, however, may be detrimental but not life threatening, e.g. diabetes in humans. the latter is a case of a mutation that has survived simply because humans know how to work around the flaw.

 

those mutations that allowed the organism to survive in the face of an otherwise life threatening situation, however, will obviously carry on. they are the "beneficial" mutations, such as the mutation that allows certain bacteria to be resistant to certain antibiotics. obviously, mutations that have positive outcomes on the organism are more likely to survive than those that have negative outcomes. some may come at a cost, however, by weakening some other aspect of the organism's abilities. if the cost is not life threatening, then the outcome could be overall a weaker organism, but one that has stumbled upon a way to survive in the face of a greater adversity.

 

i think this sums up why evolution occurs.

 

taks

[metadigital]

Actually, some scientists believe squids will evolve into the dominant life form of Earth.

 

www.thefutureiswild.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was a thought experiment of the future of the Earth if people just vanished, not a bona fide prediction.

 

But yes, encephelopods (the clue is in the name) are very intelligent, and have complex social interactions in their groups,so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that they will develop further over the next few millions of years.

[Archmonarch]

It was a joke... "

[WITHTEETH]

does anybody ever wonder if civilization turns evolution on its head, if we are so advanced that we are going backwards?

[Kaftan Barlast]

This got me thinking. Shark are oe of the most evolved species of the planet, having existed for hundreds of millions of years(only to become fishsticks at the hands of man but thats another issue). What is was wondering:

 

 

Do sharks get cancer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit: Whiteteeth> I would certainly say that society has put evolution out of comission when it comes to us humans. Atleast in the respect that "damaged" genes are allowed to live on due to modern medicine. If people with hereditary diseases did not get the chance to live and procreate, the diesease would disapear. Obvious things. Then comes that whole ill-associated discussion if its right to let people with these diseases have children. IMO, no.

[SteveThaiBinh]

does anybody ever wonder if civilization turns evolution on its head, if we are so advanced that we are going backwards?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not backwards, I think. We're taking a new path, and we have more control over our own destiny than any previous species. Instead of 'survival of the fittest', we can aspire to 'survival of all kinds'. More diversity=good in my book.

[Archmonarch]

Do sharks get cancer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While the immune systems of sharks and their relatives are fairly primitive, they are highly effective. Sharks and rays are magnitudes healthier than other fish. Though they are not immune to cancer, they almost never have tumors, even when exposed to carcinogenic agents in their food or environment. According to a site I read, only 8 to 10 true tumors have ever been documented in these species.

[cewekeds]

Variation is the key for survival for any species.

Lets take Gonorrhea we used to be able to fight it with penicillin. However do to variation a small amount strains where immune to penicillin. Then we went to ampicillin and amoxicillin yet some forms the Gonorrhea was immune so now we have strains with no know way to kill.

Lets take HIV small group of people are immune because there white blood cells are designed differently to most people. This makes it so the HIV rna can't attach to the with blood cell and reproduce.

[metadigital]

It was a joke...  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:D )

This got me thinking. Shark are oe of the most evolved species of the planet, having existed for hundreds of millions of years(only to become fishsticks at the hands of man but thats another issue). What is was wondering:

Do sharks get cancer?

edit: Whiteteeth> I would certainly say that society has put evolution out of comission when it comes to us humans. Atleast in the respect that "damaged" genes are allowed to live on due to modern medicine. If people with hereditary diseases did not get the chance to live and procreate, the diesease would disapear. Obvious things. Then comes that whole ill-associated discussion if its right to let people with these diseases have children. IMO, no.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cancer is an umbrella term for lots of diseases. Any mutation that causes the cell to duplicate without dying is a form of cancer, e.g. Leukemia ("any of various acute or chronic neoplastic diseases of the bone marrow in which unrestrained proliferation of white blood cells occurs, usually accompanied by anemia, impaired blood clotting, and enlargement of the lymph nodes, liver, and spleen").

 

I think the best answer is we haven't enough knowledge about shark physionomy yet. After all, it is only in the last couple of years we have worked out their extra senses. (And they are boneless, so good to eat.)

 

Also there is debate about genetic manipulation of the germ cells (i.e. sperm and ovum), should society allow the design of all future decendants, or just the current people?

[Jesus]

The theory of evolution is almost perfect. Trust me, i know this sh*t...

[WITHTEETH]

The theory of evolution is almost perfect. Trust me, i know this sh*t...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LMFAO!

 

Good one jesus

[Nartwak]

Hallelujah.

[Reveilled]

Oh, and there aren't any scientists that don't believe in global warming as a result of fossil fuel use.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What about these 17,000 scientists?

[213374U]

edit: Whiteteeth> I would certainly say that society has put evolution out of comission when it comes to us humans. Atleast in the respect that "damaged" genes are allowed to live on due to modern medicine. If people with hereditary diseases did not get the chance to live and procreate, the diesease would disapear. Obvious things. Then comes that whole ill-associated discussion if its right to let people with these diseases have children. IMO, no.

I tend to think of technology as another form of "evolution". Granted, regular biological evolution is no longer a factor in the development of our species, but where before it took thousands of years and the death of a lot of "unfit" individuals to eradicate a defective gene, it appears that soon (real soon!) we will be able to do just that instantly and most importantly, in live individuals. The same goes for those new robotic prosthetics that are being developed. That's the substitute for the organic regeneration that nature didn't grant us.

 

That said, I'm all for genetic manipulation. I think it's absurd not to take advantage of all the benefits that genetics could provide just because it won't be for everybody.

[Darth Flatus]

Oh, and there aren't any scientists that don't believe in global warming as a result of fossil fuel use.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What about these 17,000 scientists?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

... by signing the petition are those scientists primarily rejecting the kyoto agreement or are they asserting that human produced greenhouse gases dont have overall negative effects on the environment?