Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 1/52
(02-Feb-2003 at 05:07)


tongue



Just because I loooove talks like this I am posting my thoughts. I am no scientist and I haven't spent gone to church longer than a year ever. So I am definitly no expert, but I can point out what I do know.

*Christianity began during a time that hundreds of other religions began as well.
(My belief... Christianity just came out on top.)

*People whom represent the religion have abused the power throughout Centuries.
(My belief... Christianity was created for someone to gain power.)

*Evolution has been proven... As someone had posted. If you take a polar bear and put them in a tropical forest... They would probably lose hair and change color. This is Evolution. Adaptation is a form of evolution... If you change into something different than what you were you have evolved.
(My belief... I completely think that we have evolved from something else. But what created that something else is beyond me.)

*This is a FACT... Even if it is proven that god exists. 10% of the population in the United States in the 80s said they would still believe.
(My belief... You can argue and argue and point and point... Even make valid points. And religion will always be in the hearts of those you are trying to change.)

I cannot stand religious people... Nothing urks me more than to see people wasting thier lives trying to make a horny priest money. But, its your choice. And whatever makes you happy...

As an afterthought to all those with me in pointing out that religion is stupid... My 100% belief is in Reincarnation to a certain extent... I believe our energy leaves are body to feed other creatures in a cycle. Our "soul" is just our mind. And we really do just... Vanish. I believe that religion is used as a crutch by those that follow it. And if you take away that crutch... We may have a loooot of insane people.
#1681  
View Public Profile Find more posts by ScoobyGoblin Add ScoobyGoblin to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as ImmortalVraak X)
Posts: 220/1299
Donated $9.37
(02-Feb-2003 at 08:11)


Quote:
(Originally posted by AznBlade)

Fossil evidence, radioactive dating, relative dating, vestigal structures, observation of micro-evolution, etc. Evolution has at least some support, whereas I haven't seen any rock evidence for 7-day creation except the bible, which is contraversial itself.
Actually, world politics dictates that whichever the majority believe in is the correct power. (Not necessarily the true power, but the correct power.) In today's case, it would be creationism, which is why many people are majorly ignoring Fossil Evidence, Radioactive dating, et cetera. And technically, under the guidelines for the 7-day creation, you're technically standing/sitting/kneeling/sleeping/(put action here) on it right now.
-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Quote:
And I found a book that says aliens walk amoungst us in disguise, waiting to conquer our planet to create it into some sort of new deathstar. Lol... That was sadly in the non fiction isle. Just because the library hosts it doesn't mean it's right.
True.

Quote:
Yet, it WAS. It's the same way with Darwin. The fact he was Christian pressured him into rejecting his theory.
Whoa whoa whoa. Darwin was forced into Roman Catholicism and pressured by the Church in order to reject his theory. (Not sure about RCsm, but it was some form of Christianity)

Signature suspended by SM Tengu for violating the forum's rules. [Non-English rule]
#1682  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Majestic Vraak Add Majestic Vraak to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 5/11
(02-Feb-2003 at 13:22)
Quote:
*Evolution has been proven... As someone had posted. If you take a polar bear and put them in a tropical forest... They would probably lose hair and change color. This is Evolution. Adaptation is a form of evolution... If you change into something different than what you were you have evolved.
Adaption you would have, but evolution you wouldn't. As i have said evolution is the change or creation of a species, not an individual, if that polar bear had babies, they'd just grow into polar bears again!

And all of these attacks on "the curch" or "christianity" have to be justified, when you say that the church killed a bunch of people, justify which church it was, (generally it's the roman catholic church, whom i have a dissaproving feel of...) there's alot of different churches or branches of christianity and some are more extreme than others.

All High Monkey0 The Great, Alcholic Feary and Cullinary Genious.
#1683  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Monkey0 Add Monkey0 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Lord Drizzt)
Posts: 976/3305
Donated $2.20
(02-Feb-2003 at 13:46)


scoobygoblin, you're talking about micro-evolution, a.k.a adaption. this is abuot macro-evolution.

s o u l f i r e
#1684  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Drizzt Add Drizzt to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 215/330
(02-Feb-2003 at 15:33)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)

scoobygoblin, you're talking about micro-evolution, a.k.a adaption. this is abuot macro-evolution.
THere is no real difference in micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution = a series of microevolutions so that the original species is sufficiently different from the new on that they are considered seperate species. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

If you can accept that microevolution can happen (and this has been 100% proven) then just think about what would happen if a species underwent one microevolution, then another, then another etc. DO you not think you'd end up with something quite different than the original? or would it still be the same species in your eyes??? even though its now very different.

-:knowledge is meerly a degree of how strongly you belive something, if you know something then you believe it to be true beyond all doubt:-
#1685  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Enderwig Add Enderwig to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2049/2095
Donated $0.52
(02-Feb-2003 at 18:19)


Quote:
(Originally posted by ScoobyGoblin)


Just because I loooove talks like this I am posting my thoughts. I am no scientist and I haven't spent gone to church longer than a year ever. So I am definitly no expert, but I can point out what I do know.

*Christianity began during a time that hundreds of other religions began as well.
(My belief... Christianity just came out on top.)
Wow, you really don't know much, do you?

Christianity evolved out of Judaism.
Quote:
*People whom represent the religion have abused the power throughout Centuries.
(My belief... Christianity was created for someone to gain power.)
For who to gain power? The first Christians were also devout Jews.
Quote:
*Evolution has been proven... As someone had posted. If you take a polar bear and put them in a tropical forest... They would probably lose hair and change color. This is Evolution. Adaptation is a form of evolution... If you change into something different than what you were you have evolved.
No, it wouldn't. The factor for mutation is so big, I would run out of space to post it in the highest powers. The Polar bear must mutate and adapt. The mutation must be beneficial and have affected gene frequency in the gene pool. Adaptation is a form of evolution. It's called micro evolution. Macro evolution has yet to be observed, yet there is basically no difference besides how far evolution has gone.
Quote:
(My belief... I completely think that we have evolved from something else. But what created that something else is beyond me.)
Which is where many people put God, or the big bang. I put God even before the big bang
Quote:
*This is a FACT... Even if it is proven that god exists. 10% of the population in the United States in the 80s said they would still believe.
(My belief... You can argue and argue and point and point... Even make valid points. And religion will always be in the hearts of those you are trying to change.)
1) That's the 80s. These are the 03s. Statistics from more than 2 years ago no longer apply.
2) Evolution doesn't state there is no creator, nor does it try to descredit one. Creation doesn't state there was no evolution, no does it say it's mean to be literal. They don't have to contradict, so why make them? For example, I believe in creation and evolution.
Quote:
I cannot stand religious people... Nothing urks me more than to see people wasting thier lives trying to make a horny priest money. But, its your choice. And whatever makes you happy...
That's an insult right there. Is all you can base your crap on stereotypes? I'm religious, and I'm against organized religion which is why I don't donate to the church. I only go in the first place because of my parents. There are many types of religious people just as there are many types of people.
Quote:
As an afterthought to all those with me in pointing out that religion is stupid... My 100% belief is in Reincarnation to a certain extent... I believe our energy leaves are body to feed other creatures in a cycle. Our "soul" is just our mind. And we really do just... Vanish. I believe that religion is used as a crutch by those that follow it. And if you take away that crutch... We may have a loooot of insane people.
a) Reincarnation is a form of religious belief. So, in a way you've become a hyppocrite
b) Everything is a crutch. Technology, laws, logic, etc. are all crutches. Complain about that.
c) Can you justify your statement about indirectly saying that all religious are insane through statistics? I'd like to see how I'm insane.
-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Quote:
how would you support that darwin rejected him theory due to pressure from the chuch?
I have no direct evidence except for a few articles from Popular Mechanics Magazine and from what I was taught in Religion class. I also see that it doesn't make sense for a man to reject his life's work and put his heart and soul into it, making so many discoveries just to throw it away. That doesn't sound like the act of a respectable scientist. They're supposed to be objective in their work, and not swayed by subjective things like emotion or religion.
-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Quote:
Whoa whoa whoa. Darwin was forced into Roman Catholicism and pressured by the Church in order to reject his theory. (Not sure about RCsm, but it was some form of Christianity)
*Was hoping he wouldn't have top get into this*
Roman Catholocism was the dominant Christian religion. Before Luther split off because the Vatican was exploiting people and ancient relics for proffit, Christianity was Catholicism. I hate to admit it, but I am a Roman Catholic. My parents raised me into it, and I'm in the process of being confirmed in confirmation (a Catholic sacrament). Sadly, this is being done against my will. The Catholic Dogma to me is utter bull. There are things stating things like "If you don't believe in God, go go to hell" and "The Pope has the power to be infallible". There are even worse ones.

Anyways, the Catholic Vatican as far as I know is firmly on the stance of Creationism. They're the ones who arrested Galleleio for looking up.

In brightest day, in blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil's might, Beware my power, Green Lantern's Light
Slave of Justara
Home~The Gaming Universe~Forums
#1686  
View Public Profile Visit AznBlade's homepage Find more posts by AznBlade Add AznBlade to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Lord Drizzt)
Posts: 980/3305
Donated $2.20
(03-Feb-2003 at 04:33)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Enderwig)

THere is no real difference in micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution = a series of microevolutions so that the original species is sufficiently different from the new on that they are considered seperate species. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

If you can accept that microevolution can happen (and this has been 100% proven) then just think about what would happen if a species underwent one microevolution, then another, then another etc. DO you not think you'd end up with something quite different than the original? or would it still be the same species in your eyes??? even though its now very different.
well i believe in adaption. it obviously does exist. however, macro-evolution states how life formed, and claims that the earch is billions of years old. this i have doubts about. i also dont believe that dinosaurs existed billions of years ago. thousands is more plausible for me.

s o u l f i r e
#1687  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Drizzt Add Drizzt to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6/11
(03-Feb-2003 at 12:40)
For the 3rd time, and adaptions that happen to an organism in it's life wil change it, but not it's offspring or the species. no amount of adaptions will make a "macro"evolution of a species, unless it happens to change it's genes, and it'll only be passed on if it happens to it's gametes.
To add to the catholic thing, there has been heaps of different denominations even a few hundred years ago, the church of england was pretty old, made up so one of the kings could get a divorce, many countries had their own church, i saw in a Truths of dracula that there was a romanian church. Just about every major power, countries etc, was backed up by a strong relligious faction or another, what better to hold the peasants in check than eternal damnation?
And Dinosaurs roamed the earth from, um, can't remember the first date, 170 million years rings a bell but don't quote me on that, till 65 million years ago. Quite a few thousand, but not a couple of billion, we'd be lucky to have algae back then.

All High Monkey0 The Great, Alcholic Feary and Cullinary Genious.
#1688  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Monkey0 Add Monkey0 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(User is Banned)
Posts: 167/427
(03-Feb-2003 at 17:17)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)

well i believe in adaption. it obviously does exist. however, macro-evolution states how life formed, and claims that the earch is billions of years old. this i have doubts about. i also dont believe that dinosaurs existed billions of years ago. thousands is more plausible for me.
Why is it?
Wich evidence do you have that make you reach the conclusion that the dinosaurs existed only thousands of years?
(you must be a real genius to realize what so many people that have studied it for a life time didn't)

I would really would like you to present the evidence, facts and arguments of your theory so that I may be more enlightened!

Even if all the expert agreed they might still be wrong.
Blinder then the blind man is the man that does not want to see. Convictions have hurt more the truth then lies.
The supreme victory is to win without doing battle.- Sun Tzu

Live each day as if it was your last. One day you will be right!
#1689  
View Public Profile Find more posts by cid12 Add cid12 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 220/330
(03-Feb-2003 at 18:02)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Monkey0)

For the 3rd time, and adaptions that happen to an organism in it's life wil change it, but not it's offspring or the species. no amount of adaptions will make a "macro"evolution of a species, unless it happens to change it's genes, and it'll only be passed on if it happens to it's gametes.
To add to the catholic thing, there has been heaps of different denominations even a few hundred years ago, the church of england was pretty old, made up so one of the kings could get a divorce, many countries had their own church, i saw in a Truths of dracula that there was a romanian church. Just about every major power, countries etc, was backed up by a strong relligious faction or another, what better to hold the peasants in check than eternal damnation?
And Dinosaurs roamed the earth from, um, can't remember the first date, 170 million years rings a bell but don't quote me on that, till 65 million years ago. Quite a few thousand, but not a couple of billion, we'd be lucky to have algae back then.
Adaptions are passed on to the young as they are present in the gametes of the adapted organism. In order for an adaption to occur the genes for that adaption must be present in that organism. The adaption can not take place without the genes that encode the new proteins so the genes for the adaption must exhist. Genes are passed on to the offspring. So yes adaptions can in this sence be passed down. The offspring will also have the original genes for what ever the parent was before the adaption but as they are in the new environment in which the adaption occured they will display the adaption genes.

THis however does not go as far as to back up lamarckism (?Spell?). It does not mean that mutations in parents non gamete cells will be passed on to the young. Just that the same organism expresses different genes in different conditions and this type of adaption is passed on. New mutations are not UNLESS they occur in the gametes. In which case the offspring will express the mutated gene that the parent will not have expressed. If this is a benficial mutation the offspring will have evolved whilst the parent will not have. THe offspring will then pass this new mutation to its offspring. THus the evolved species. You might think that the chances of a mutation in a gamete is very unlikely as that is only one cell type in the entire organism. Try considering the number of gametes a male (human) makes! its in the billions. As for females (human) although there are far fewer gametes these gametes are with the women from her birth. Very few cells are around for 30-40 years, most human cells are regenerated AT LEAST every 11 years, including bone cells. Egg cells however are not. 30 years of accumulated radiation etc will cause a large number of mutations (this is why women are encouraged to have children at a younger age). So is it really so unlikely to have a mutation in a gamete??

So once again. microevolution has been proven 100% INCLUDING that these changes are passed on to the offspring. If this is 100% fact (which it is) why is it so hard to accept that macroevolution happens as macroevolution is just a series of microevolutions?

-:knowledge is meerly a degree of how strongly you belive something, if you know something then you believe it to be true beyond all doubt:-
#1690  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Enderwig Add Enderwig to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2053/2095
Donated $0.52
(04-Feb-2003 at 00:27)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Monkey0)

For the 3rd time, and adaptions that happen to an organism in it's life wil change it, but not it's offspring or the species.
Wow, someone failed bioloogy. First off, an adaptation is a change in the GENOTYPE AS INFLUENCED BY PHENOTYPE. That means the mutation is in the DNA which is produced into gametes during meiosis.
Quote:
no amount of adaptions will make a "macro"evolution of a species, unless it happens to change it's genes, and it'll only be passed on if it happens to it's gametes.
Which is what an adaptation is. It's a mutation that through natural selection is beneficial.
Quote:
And Dinosaurs roamed the earth from, um, can't remember the first date, 170 million years rings a bell but don't quote me on that, till 65 million years ago. Quite a few thousand, but not a couple of billion, we'd be lucky to have algae back then.
Do you have evidence to back that up?

In brightest day, in blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil's might, Beware my power, Green Lantern's Light
Slave of Justara
Home~The Gaming Universe~Forums
#1691  
View Public Profile Visit AznBlade's homepage Find more posts by AznBlade Add AznBlade to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 68/74
(04-Feb-2003 at 02:20)
Dinosaur bones, whos age is determined by carbon dating?
#1692  
View Public Profile Find more posts by toasted Add toasted to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2055/2095
Donated $0.52
(04-Feb-2003 at 02:52)


C-14, Potassium-Argon, Thermoluminescence(sp?), etc. dating techniques all point to dinosaurs roaming the earth millions of years ago.

In brightest day, in blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil's might, Beware my power, Green Lantern's Light
Slave of Justara
Home~The Gaming Universe~Forums
#1693  
View Public Profile Visit AznBlade's homepage Find more posts by AznBlade Add AznBlade to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Lord Drizzt)
Posts: 990/3305
Donated $2.20
(04-Feb-2003 at 03:47)


Quote:
Why is it?
Wich evidence do you have that make you reach the conclusion that the dinosaurs existed only thousands of years?
(you must be a real genius to realize what so many people that have studied it for a life time didn't)

I would really would like you to present the evidence, facts and arguments of your theory so that I may be more enlightened!
ok heres my argument

Macro-Evolution Claim: eyes take millions of years to form
Result From Experiment: eyes take less than 11 years to form
read this:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/kammerer/index.html

if you're still not satisfied, you can do a search for more stuff on paul kammerer's experiments

even if eyes take a shorter period of time to develop if forced, it's still impossible for eyes to be deveoped a few million times slower.

s o u l f i r e
#1694  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Drizzt Add Drizzt to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 141/154
(04-Feb-2003 at 04:01)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)

ok heres my argument

Macro-Evolution Claim: eyes take millions of years to form
Result From Experiment: eyes take less than 11 years to form
read this:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/kammerer/index.html

if you're still not satisfied, you can do a search for more stuff on paul kammerer's experiments

even if eyes take a shorter period of time to develop if forced, it's still impossible for eyes to be deveoped a few million times slower.
If you don't understand what you've read, don't talk about it. You just made a complete fool of yourself.
#1695  
View Public Profile Find more posts by yourdoom Add yourdoom to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 142/154
(04-Feb-2003 at 04:09)
This post here is to clarify things a bit.

First of all, Darwin DID NOT RECANT ON HIS DEATH BED. Whoever says otherwise is LYING. If anyone here continue to insist that he recant, plz show me any evidence. Any type of evidence.

Quote:
. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the _Christian_ for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."'
http://www.ediacara.org/hope.html
Whats more. Here is a link to a creationist website that have the honesty to investigate the matter.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp
#1696  
View Public Profile Find more posts by yourdoom Add yourdoom to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Lord Drizzt)
Posts: 994/3305
Donated $2.20
(04-Feb-2003 at 04:10)


i know i didnt explain myself enough, so ill elaborate more later. for now, im not in the mood to type up a huge post

s o u l f i r e
#1697  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Drizzt Add Drizzt to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 7/11
(04-Feb-2003 at 04:25)
Quote:
Wow, someone failed bioloogy. First off, an adaptation is a change in the GENOTYPE AS INFLUENCED BY PHENOTYPE. That means the mutation is in the DNA which is produced into gametes during meiosis.
Actually, i did quite well in biology, an adaption is something an organism does to cope with change, it can take anywhere from hours to years to do. For example, if a human moves to say, nepal, it's body will have to adapt to the new conditions. It the medium term blood is restricted (somewhat) from the skin so not as much heat is lost, in the long term the blood thinkens and more blood cells are made as there is less oxygen up there (i think thats why) and in the short term things like the hair folicles standing on end to better hold the heat (not as good as it once was as we seem to have lost a bit of hair). These are all adaptions and have nothing to do with DNA or genotypes, and i don't know how a phenotype can influence a genotype, as phenotypes are the charateristics demonstrated by a genotype.
Mutations in the DNA can cause an adaption, but only if it is when it is a gamete and the offspring is born with it, or if the mutation is passed on to every cell in the body which hasn't really been done yet.
Evolution can only occur if the change is passed on to the offspring, and that can only happen if the change is present in it's gametes.

All High Monkey0 The Great, Alcholic Feary and Cullinary Genious.
#1698  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Monkey0 Add Monkey0 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 221/330
(04-Feb-2003 at 18:22)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Monkey0)

Actually, i did quite well in biology, an adaption is something an organism does to cope with change, it can take anywhere from hours to years to do. For example, if a human moves to say, nepal, it's body will have to adapt to the new conditions. It the medium term blood is restricted (somewhat) from the skin so not as much heat is lost, in the long term the blood thinkens and more blood cells are made as there is less oxygen up there (i think thats why) and in the short term things like the hair folicles standing on end to better hold the heat (not as good as it once was as we seem to have lost a bit of hair). These are all adaptions and have nothing to do with DNA or genotypes, and i don't know how a phenotype can influence a genotype, as phenotypes are the charateristics demonstrated by a genotype.
Mutations in the DNA can cause an adaption, but only if it is when it is a gamete and the offspring is born with it, or if the mutation is passed on to every cell in the body which hasn't really been done yet.
Evolution can only occur if the change is passed on to the offspring, and that can only happen if the change is present in it's gametes.
In the medium term blood is restricted from the skin. How is this done. Its is done using a series of signal molecules (coded for by the genome) and proteins which allow the cappilieries in the skin to contract and restrict blood flow through them. THese proteins are encoded by the genome. If the genes for the molecules which cause this medium term adaption is not present then the adaption will not be able to take place. THus there is a genetic component to your example of adaption. Such a strong one in fact that without the genetic component the adaption would not take place.

Your right that a mutation in somatic (non gamete) cells wont affect offspring (lord drizzt take note!). THis is the only occasion where an adaptation in a parent is not present in the offspring. All others are, they might not all however be expressed, if the offspring grows up in a different environment to the parent.

Oh and Lord Drizzt i went to that page you posted. What relevence does this have to eyes evolving in 11 years? what has happenend here is the newts have rudimentry eyes but prob have genes for more complex eyes. THey dont develop howeve as there is no need for them. When there is a need for them they develop. Even if this isnt the case then the newts do have eyes to start with anyway. To get to this stage may have taken millions of years. I wouldnt trust that guys work anyway. He was a fraud. His experiments can be interpreted in a different way that backs evolution insted of lamarkism. As all other evidence disproves lamarkism im inclined to support evolution. Either way god aint involved.. Lamarkism has been disproved. Thats why those with amputated arms dont give birth to one armed kids as lamarkism suggests. The reason so many scientists say its rediculous is because it is.

-:knowledge is meerly a degree of how strongly you belive something, if you know something then you believe it to be true beyond all doubt:-
#1699  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Enderwig Add Enderwig to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(User is Banned)
Posts: 169/427
(04-Feb-2003 at 19:10)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)

ok heres my argument

Macro-Evolution Claim: eyes take millions of years to form
Result From Experiment: eyes take less than 11 years to form
read this:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/kammerer/index.html

if you're still not satisfied, you can do a search for more stuff on paul kammerer's experiments

even if eyes take a shorter period of time to develop if forced, it's still impossible for eyes to be deveoped a few million times slower.

I really don't know the name in english but I think it's called residual structures/organs something like that.

What are those?

Those are structures like inter digital menbranes, apendix, etc... that have almost no purpose, and are usually signs of something that previous species or individuals of a specie needed but no longer do.
Think like this: if you get tired of walking and decide to move on a weel chair and sit on your ass all day, your legs will start to get weak.
If your children do the same, they will have similar effects on them, but it does not mean that your linage looses the ability to walk, although if no longer necessarie, good legs might no longer play a role in evolucionary fitness, and since there is more likelyhood of negative mutations then positive...

How does genetic stuff work?

You (humans) basically have 23 pares of cromossomes, 22 normal ones and 1 sex pair X & Y.
When a cell divides (mitose) first that material is duplicated then passed equal and identical amount to each cell (ich one start with 2 pairs).
In meiose (used to produce gametas like sperm and eggs) there is crossover between 2 equivalent cromossomes (except the sex thing, HOPEFULLY) and they swap genetic material with eachother, thus making more possible conbinations. Then they are put in each new cell, 1 cromossome of each type per new cell.
When the sperm cell reaches the egg they merge, and thus the cell they create receives 1 of each cromosomes from the father and 1 of each cromosomes from the mother.

In the cell it usually occurs that RNA (has pairs of nucleic acids u-t, and c-g) is produced from DNA (has pairs of nucleic acids a-t, and c-g), then RNA proceeds to the outside of the nucleus of the cell into the ribossomes were proteins are produced (proteins can be part of the structure of cells, enzimes, hormones...) and it is proteins that usually make things happen in the cells.

Like any good chemist knows: Reactions are a "by-product" of probabilitys, this means there is usually a certain probability of a given reation between two atoms or molecules to happen, somtime is bigger sometimes smaller, and all that happens in cells are chemical reactions such has the duplication of DNA, the DNA will likelly/might stay the same after a duplication but it might also suffer mutation (unusual reactions: c-t; a-t...). If the mutation rises the chances of surviving and reproduction of the specimen that carries it, chances are he will survive and reproduce more.


I know it was a long one, but if you bother to read it, it might have something interesting and/or mistakes (the bigger the universe in account the more likely it is to have "anomalous" events).
Feel free to correct me, and/or place questions.

Even if all the expert agreed they might still be wrong.
Blinder then the blind man is the man that does not want to see. Convictions have hurt more the truth then lies.
The supreme victory is to win without doing battle.- Sun Tzu

Live each day as if it was your last. One day you will be right!
#1700  
View Public Profile Find more posts by cid12 Add cid12 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 08:29.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.