|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Swami]
#1254171 - 01/27/03 04:32 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry Jackal, but the Pepper Moth story does not show any evolution (genetic change) whatsoever, but the deselection for certain color genes via being eaten.
Yes, there is a population shift / preference for a certain wing color, but absolutely NOTHING is happening to the genetic code on the DNA level.
But isn't the genome of the population changing? physical evolution doesn't spontaneously change an individual animal - it only changes the genetic makeup of a group through natural selection. If you sampled the DNA of the moth population before and after the wing color change, you would find that there is a change. Genetic change did take place. Individial genomes being "deselected" caused a change in the population genome.
|
Teragon
Noddy
Registered: 02/20/01
Posts: 36,253
Loc: Lost in the Patterns
|
|
Now this is my type of thread. Awww man where to start and too many places to take it. First off I'd like to point out that while the Peppermoth/Industrial Age example is a good one for evolution, it was falsified...it was a fake. Some asshole used dead moths and painted(or something) them...they've proved it from the old photos. Swami: Sorry Jackal, but the Pepper Moth story does not show any evolution (genetic change) whatsoever, but the deselection for certain color genes via being eaten. That is evolution. infidelGOD has the right idea...but a much better term than natural selection or survival of the fittest is differential reproductive success. Those moths that were eaten couldn't pass their genetic makeup on, altering the population's genotype, effectively changing what the organism looked like (of course it isn't always such a drastic change...hell that one isn't even real). Swami, your example of the puppies doesn't work b/c its only one litter of puppies not a population of dogs. If you killed ALL the white puppies/dogs (or they couldn't survive/pass-on-genes because of differential reproductive success), then yes the dogs would have evolved...there would no longer be any white ones...get it? Sorry, I don't mean to rank on you; your quote was just a good example of what evolution really is.
Now, diggitydankman chimed in with some dank info, "Ideas speculating about evolutionary codons and sequences that are continuously trying to evolve our DNA have began to become more credible. Also our DNA is thought to have a sequence that can fix bad mutations. " This is very true, our cells have countless enzymes that proofread the DNA after replication to ensure a flawless copy. Mutation are fairly rare and they are not the key component of this worlds genetic diversity...but they do make enough variations to have an effect. Interestingly enough, our DNA has long, unused segments called introns. After the DNA is transcribed into RNA, the RNA introns actually catalyze their own excision! (a piece Xibalba's very fascinating theory). Their is so much about DNA that we don't know.
Adamist: It's just like alot of people accept the "fact" that dinosaurs died as a result of a meteor impacting the Earth. This isn't a fact, yet people seem to accept it as such. The FACT is, that most things people view as facts are little more than theoretical explanations for something that cannot objectively be proved or disproved, which makes them easily changeable.
Well there is some evidence behind this...some guy didn't just make it up. Meteors are known to contain a very rare element named Iridium. At the same rock layer that the dinosaur fossils stop they is an huge abundance of this element, which is otherwise rarely/if ever seen on and around earth. That evidence is too coincindental for me to naively brush off.
I'm currently taking AP Biology and my teacher has a doctorate in evolution, so I'm quite educated in this subject. If you read a well-written Biology textbook (like Campbell 6th Edition), the amount of evidence for evolution is overwhelming (so many other points but I've already wasted too much time e.g. Universal Genetic Code, Homologous Structures, and not only did wings "evolve" (I'm starting to hate that term) once, but they did many many times. Insects, birds, bats all separated from common ancestor long ago and developed wings by themselves.)
Just wanted to throw in my thoughts and hope I didn't offend anyone.
-------------------- need that cash to feed them jones.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Teragon]
#1258410 - 01/29/03 09:54 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Good post.
BTW, can you provide some sources for your claim that the pepper moth thing was a hoax? (not trying to argue with you... I'm intrigued, I've never heard that it was so... in fact, I know of a few professors that still refer to the moth story. I would love to inform them that it was a hoax.)
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Jackal
Well Versed In Etiquette
Registered: 10/16/02
Posts: 4,576
Last seen: 8 months, 2 days
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Teragon]
#1260050 - 01/29/03 08:06 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
(like Campbell 6th Edition)
Superb book, I have the 4th Edition from when I was at Uni 6 years ago. It is my Biology Bible
--------------------
|
Teragon
Noddy
Registered: 02/20/01
Posts: 36,253
Loc: Lost in the Patterns
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Sclorch]
#1261026 - 01/30/03 06:45 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sclorch- Thank you. I'll get some documentation ASAP, but I remember it had something to do with a guy going over the old photos in detail and noticing a bunch of signs that hint at death in insects. Like when all insects die, they get a clearish-gray thin layer over their eyes as part of the exoskeleton, which is a tell-tale sign of death.
Jackal- Yeah, Campbell is the man...does a great job of explaining biology.
-------------------- need that cash to feed them jones.
|
|