what i mean is, how does DNA actually change?

DNA can change in several ways. When it is being copied when a cell divides, errors can sometimes occur. Those errors can result in incorrect "letters", or in sections of the DNA being cut out, or in sections of the DNA being duplicated. To take an imaginary example, say the original sequence was:

GATACA

Incorrect copies may include strings like:

GATTCA
GAACA
GATACAACA

Occasionally, DNA can also mutate, due to some kind of random chemical or atomic event. A mutation, like a copying error, can change one or more of the "letters" in a DNA sequence.

Hopefully a biologist can give you a more detailed answer.

That was informative but I really wanted to know how it happened in an evolutionary sense, like in conjunctuion with Darwin's theories.

How does an orgainsm genes change according to its habitat?

An organisms genes do not change because of its habitat. Evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection.

Heres an example. Theres a catapilar living in grassland. It is colord green. Any mutations that happen to make an individual a different color are unsuccessful because it is more noticable to predators in grassland. But say a few individuals move into a forested area. Suddenly, brown is a much more desirable trait to have, and will be 'selected' for. Not that evolution says 'you will survive better as a brown creature so I will make you brown', its just that over time certain mutations, in this case a brown colored mutation, will be brought out because its more successful. The brown caterpillars will have a better chance of survivng than its green parents.

Hope this helps.

Evolution is hard for me to conceptualize. I don't understand how random simple mutations can eventually make a sophisticated alteration.

For example, I would like to better understand mimicry. I don't think that initial mutations would be significant enough to select for, so how do the successive changes keep their momentum?

proteome:

Changes to the DNA are incremental. Small changes add up over time to make big changes.

Let's take a very simple example. Consider a zebra or similar animal. Let's say that at some time all these animals were fairly slow runners, due to inefficient leg muscles, or disproportionately large bodies. Let's also imagine that these animals are preyed upon by some kind of predator such as lions.

In a large group of these animals, essentially all of them are slow runners, not very well adpated for escaping the lions. The lions can pick off pretty much any zebra they want. But, in the group, there will be random variations in the DNA which make a few animals able to run a bit faster than the others. Which ones will be more likely to be captured by the lions? Obviously, the slower ones. That means that any animals which are slightly faster will have more chance of surviving and having offspring, which will inherit speed from their parents. Over time, therefore, the faster animals will come to dominate the population. On average, all the zebras will be a bit faster than before. (At the same time, the lions will, on average, be improving in their ability to catch the faster zebras.)

Changes to the DNA are random, and usually not beneficial. Most changes are for the worse rather than for the better; only a few changes give the affected animal a benefit. However, natural selection is such that good changes tend to stay in the gene pool, whereas bad ones soon disappear because animals with the bad changes are more likely to die before reproducing.

Remember that evolution has millions of years in which to work, which amounts to hundreds of thousands of generations of animals (at least). A series of very small changes can lead to dramatic changes over the lifetime of a species - and it can also lead to one species gradually changing into another, or branching into multiple other species.

Originally posted by proteome


For example, I would like to better understand mimicry. I don't think that initial mutations would be significant enough to select for, so how do the successive changes keep their momentum?

this only happens when the selection pressure keeps pushing for these mutations for several generations. A single dry year would not be enough...100 dry years in a row would be selective.

I undertand the principal of evolution and I understand natural selection. In your example, above, you refer to "a few animals able to run a bit faster". Is it possible for a single mutation to cause an animal to run faster?

<i>Is it possible for a single mutation to cause an animal to run faster?</i>

I'm not a biologist, but I'd say probably yes.

All of you above have done a great job… James: I’ll take over from here thanks you very much though.

Proteome,

Yes in fact there are many mutation scenarios in which just one would have a dramatic effect on the speed and endurance of an animal. Any one mutation that enhances the efficiency of the muscles, mitochondrion and vascular system would enhance physical performance. All this requires is a mutation in a gene that changes the amino acid sequence of a protein the gene makes. For your knowledge all life (with very minor exceptions) follows under the Central Dogma: DNA transcribed into mRNA and that is translated into protein and Protein does all work and makes life possible. The code of DNA decides the order of amino acid in the protein and the different amino acids determine the shape of the protein and its reactivity. Different proteins do very different things. A mutation in gene that makes a protein (or class of proteins) can change the shape of the protein and thus make the protein do new thing or enhance or reduce the efficiency of what it did (probably some catalytic reaction or structural purpose)

Well, we could look at it another way. Since Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection will probably never be proven, my theory is that intelligent beings from another planet genetically engineered us from primates. This is why scientists believe we 'evolved' from them and why the similarities between chimpanzees and man. This will never be proven either, but I believe this holds more water than the theory of natural selection.

norad:

<i>Since Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection will probably never be proven, my theory is that intelligent beings from another planet genetically engineered us from primates.</i>

Did they also genetically engineer all the other species, or did the primates evolve and then the aliens took the final step? If the latter, why draw the line just before humans? If you accept all previous evolution up to primates, it's only a small step from there to man.

On another point, it is true that the theory of natural selection will never be proven, but so what? No scientific theory will ever be proven. The question is: how much supporting evidence is there for one theory or another? In the case of natural selection, the answer is: heaps.

This is pure amateur speculation...
If the first people to come out of African 50,000 years ago populated the rest of the earth, then only 2,000(+) generations account for all of our genetic diversity. I have no idea what that number is, but I read that humans share 98.7 % of our DNA with chimpanzees, so that's < 1.3 % of 30,000 or 390 genes. About 1 mutation every 5 generations would be the average.

No every person shares about 99.9% with every other person or about 1-2 dozen gene difference. In fact only small mutations in genes that effect there relieve efficiency is what separates most people from each other. Chimpanzees on the other hand have a whole extra chromosome set (we have 46/23 pairs they have 48/24)

It depends on how you look at heaps. Really, when you look at it, there is no 'heaps' of proof for natural selection. You asked me about what about the animals, blah, blah, blah. Yes, they did, and they do, mutate, adapt-but they do not evolutionize! The small step to man, really didn't happen JR. The proof lies within the fact that chimps don't climb out of trees and turn into humans. So, the question is, why would animals mutate, and adapt, but this is more prevelant in insects, while primates don't? That is the real question. The other question is why did fish come out of the water and turn into lizards? There were no real threats-not like today with the loads of crap in the oceans! Why did lizards go up into trees and turn into birds? I believe the theory of natural selection is really science fiction. And I'm not really sure if you know this JR, but Darwin bawled his eyes out on his death bed. He was a Christian believe it or not-I'm far from it-and he realized what he had done with his theory. Science assumes this occured from fish coming out of the water etc., but why? Is it not possible that birds developed from one set of one-celled organizms, while fish, lizards, etc. from different types? Maybe even mutated types of one-celled organizms? Who knows? This is why I think the way I do. It's why I do draw the line at a certain point. All you have to do JR is open your mind just a little bit instead of trying to make me feel like shit because of your disregard to other people's opinions.

norad-

Your distinction between mutation & adaptation and evolution is a nice trick, but sorry, it's not working. Evolution (in genetic terms) is often described as changes in frequencies of alleles over time, which would incorporate both mutations and the adaptations from such mutations. Sorry.

Whether Darwin recanted or not on his deathbed means nothing. Which, BTW, is an urban legend.

As for chimps climbing out of trees and turning into humans - nothing in the evolutionary history nor anything in evolutionary theory maintains that occurred or will occur.

As for prevalence, take a look at genome size and rate of reproduction. A generation of insects can come and go in the course of a few weeks, having been exposed to selective evolutionary pressures. A generation of primates comes and goes in the course of decades. To say that humans don't have mutations is just denial.

As for the idea that various multicellular organisms are descended from separate populations of unicellular organisms, not in and of itself a bad idea, but once again, it fails to match up with the ribosomal RNA evidence from which a phylogenetic tree has been constructed. The commonality of various biochemical and genetic components across all species casts truckloads of doubt on that idea.

norad,

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in the sun or moon! Oh there is heaps of proof and it is not abstract either but as clear-cut as you can get! For one: How is it that all life is genetically related and that genes can even be traced back through different species? There is no competitive theory of the existent of life that can explain this as well as evolution!

About the apes coming out of trees and becoming human, jee that already happened!

And most of all what pisses me off most about creationist is they always claim that Genesis was right... oh ya first prove to me it was not a Hindu god or Buddha or Jupiter, Zeus or Thor that created all life and the Universe! How dare you attack science with religion when you still can't prove your self against other religions... when in fact you can't prove your self at all!

Did I say I was a creationist? You are one pompous peckerhead! I'm merely stating things the way I see it instead of the way schools taught you-governments fund schools don't forget that. And if you trust your government, you are too stupid to even comprehend what I said in my last string!

Norad

my theory is that intelligent beings from another planet genetically engineered us from primates.

Did you get that from that B-rated sci-fi flick, “Quatermass and the Pit (Five Million Years to Earth)”

http://home.fuse.net/arcsite/Qandpit.jpg

What? What does government have to do with any of this? One of the thing the crazy government force me to learn was that it is a Ad Hominem fallacy to claim something is wrong because of the nature of its source. So evolution is not wrong just because the governments that teach it are corrupt and well... stupid. Try staying within the bounds of a critical thinking, it one of those things most governments force every university to teach to their students which is kind of odd considering that critical thinks skill also allow us to see what a bunch of fat cats and pigs our governments made of.

Sorry to add so little to this discussion..

I don't think anybody mentioned that individuals or species don't evolve, populations evolve. So when you think of an organism slowly changing over time, you're wrong; it's a population changing over time.

Ha-ha funny Q. No, can't say I did. I'm actually working on a book which of course will be fiction, but it brings about some points. Yes, Chariots of the Gods was done, but mine is much more in depth. 14 years in the making so far and counting. I have said this in another string, but I'll say it here as well for your benefit-so that you are not going 'what is he talking about?' I'm not a Christian first of all/Creationist what have you. Biology is my strong point. 100% in grade 12 and a BSc. If one applies scientific fact, theory, and conjecture to the Bible, yes you saw correctly, there are really some interesting findings. Don't forget this book, or I should say a compilation of books, was written centuries ago. For instance in Genesis, it says, And God said let there be light! Forget the God bit for one moment. Now ask yourself what was the light of the first day? What is that referencing? Well, it wasn't the sun because that wasn't until the fourth day-my opinion maybe 4000 years, 4 million years or even 4 billion years. So the light of the first day is still not answered-but it was answered in 1929 by Edwin Hubble. So, the question is, who or what knew about the big bang centuries ago? There is a reason for my thinking Q, and if you would calm down and let people go on their way, well, this board wouldn't be such a bad place.

norad:

You have a lot to learn about evolution. I suggest you make some effort to learn something about it before you dismiss it.

<i>The proof lies within the fact that chimps don't climb out of trees and turn into humans.</i>

But they do. It's a <b>gradual</b> process. The ape-like ancestors of humans lived in trees. Then, due largely to climate change, which changed their habitat, they began spending more time on the ground and less time in the trees. Gradually, they gave up the trees all together. This is a process that occured over millions of years - not overnight.

<i>So, the question is, why would animals mutate, and adapt, but this is more prevelant in insects, while primates don't?</i>

Insects have much shorter lifespans than primates. Therefore, they tend to adapt and speciate faster.

<i>The other question is why did fish come out of the water and turn into lizards? There were no real threats-not like today with the loads of crap in the oceans!</i>

Of course there were real threats. All forms of life have predators. Similarly, fish compete with each other for food. A fish who could come out of the water (say into a tidal area), even temporarily, could exploit new food sources. That would give it an evolutionary advantage.

<i>Why did lizards go up into trees and turn into birds?</i>

They didn't. Birds are thought to have evolved from feathered dinosaurs. Originally, they did not live in trees.

<i>I believe the theory of natural selection is really science fiction.</i>

With respect, you don't know enough to make an informed judgment on that yet.

<i>And I'm not really sure if you know this JR, but Darwin bawled his eyes out on his death bed. He was a Christian believe it or not-I'm far from it-and he realized what he had done with his theory.</i>

Do you have a reference for the death-bed story? I know Darwin was a Christian. Did you know that he did not think that the theory of evolution was incompatible with a belief in God? (He was right, too.)

<i>Is it not possible that birds developed from one set of one-celled organizms, while fish, lizards, etc. from different types?</i>

No, it isn't possible. You have only to look at the DNA of various organisms to know that they share common ancestors. In fact, you don't even need to do that - you can simply look at their anatomy.

<i>All you have to do JR is open your mind just a little bit instead of trying to make me feel like shit because of your disregard to other people's opinions.</i>

You're telling <i>me</i> to keep an open mind? It's you who is dismissing a theory out of hand, without even bothering to check what it says.

<i>Biology is my strong point. 100% in grade 12 and a BSc.</i>

You have a B.Sc.? I assume it isn't in biology, or you would have studied evolution. Which university?

Dalhousie, then I went to UWO. Your right to some aspect about not studing in biology, although I did take some courses-no masters degree in it. But, JR, fish have predators today, like they did a million years ago. This is what I mean. I'm not down playing the theory of natural selection-correction, it wasn't called the theory of evolution-but I'm down playing some things that don't add up, and they never will add up no matter how hard scientists try! And what right do you have to say I don't know enough to make an informed judgement? You don't have the right to judge me, but you did. You have a B.Sc.? I assume it isn't in biology, or you would have studied evolution. Don't start JR. This is a friendly reminder that you nor I nor the theory of natural selection are perfect! One more thing, where is the proof that they are coming out of trees turning into human beings? Saskuatch? If you read my last post here, you would see that I have done a lot of research over the past 14 years. How much have you done?

They seem to add up to me... must be a lot of people out there that just can't add :D

JR give norad here another biatch slaping, he's niping again!

Wellcookedfetus. First of all, no one asked for your opinion. Second of all, if you had a brain you would do some research for yourself. As stated in an earlier post, 14 years of research and counting. How much have you done? By the sounds of it, not a lot accept being an internet 'troll.'

jee you don't seem to have much proof on "14 years of research"? If you did then maybe we would not be criticizing you.
you got any evidence and proof for your Raelian belief?

WCF. I just want to thank you for your eloquently spoken, and informative posts. I've learned a lot, and am having fun.

That's funny wfc, but I don't believe Raelians or whatever you call those people were around when I started my research. Yet another post by yet another person that think they are smart.

y4 I sp3ak Go()d!

I especially like norad he makes me laugh! He obviously does not know about my ability to find all insults laughable. Why don't you lay some proof and evidence from 14 year of studying and coming to the conclusion of your psuedo-Raelian belief then?

Why? Because they are fanatics that's why! Jesh!

Originally posted by norad
Wellcookedfetus. First of all, no one asked for your opinion. You are posting to a public forum... you're going to get people's opinions... and I'm going to add mine :P

While there is not a complete proof of evolution there is a large amount. Considering we are looking back thousands of years we are not going to find every single step of evolution. However, transitional fossils have been found going from ape to man. This supports evolution.

The idea that some traits can further the devlopment of a species is obvious. The idea that the genes causing these traits can be added/removed through natural selection is logical.

The idea that aliens came down and planted life may or may not be true (same as God planting life), but there is no supporting evidence of aliens creating us.

P.S. - LONG LIVE THE FETUS

the biblical account of creation, the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as "God" in the singular, but it is a plural, which means "those who came from the sky".

Originally posted by norad
Why? Because they are fanatics that's why! Jesh! Wait... you aren't providing proof of your theory development over 14 years because someone else is a fanatic? ummm...

Originally posted by proteome
the biblical account of creation, the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated... People always say stuff like this, and the 'true' translation seems to change depending on the moment. Do you have any sources for this from lingual experts?

Don't forget the very definitive genetic evidence!

norad I still have no understanding of your belief structure: I have asked repeatedly for some evidence and proof of it… why won’t you tell us?

It's a quote from this site, which is made from cheese-whip and click-to-buy.

http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html

norad,

Argument from authority is generally a pretty poor form of argument. Suffice it to say that my Science qualifications are at least equal to yours, though I freely admit that they are not in biology either. Against your 14 years study, I put up a similar amount of time exploring the theory of evolution in my spare time. But I am well aware that time alone doesn't say much. There are people on this board who say they have dedicated large chunks of their lives to studying certain things, yet they get caught on basic questions. An understanding built on shakey foundations is not much of an understanding.

<i>But, JR, fish have predators today, like they did a million years ago.</i>

Sure, and fish today are very different from fish a million years ago.

What is it about evolution that you think doesn't add up?

<i>One more thing, where is the proof that they are coming out of trees turning into human beings?</i>

In the fossil record.

Listen, I get on here to post my manifestos, steal idea's from other people, and spread wrong info.

Mostly, I am getting away from stress of work and participating in a hobby I like.

Flamers and insulters and people that tell me to give it up and go buy a text book are Euclidian, baby.

Originally posted by proteome
Flamers and insulters and people that tell me to give it up and go buy a text book are Euclidian, baby. I'm only asking you about that bible translation message:) I suspect that you read this somewhere and that the source (or the source's source) just made it up. The bigger problem is that someone *cough*norad*cough* kindnapped this thread to attack evolution.

P.S. Why does Rael have Princess Leia's hairdo?

Hey now look I have been study evolution since I was Five:

"Me: Mommy were did people come from?
Mom: They evolved from monkeys.
Me: evoved that sounds funny!
Mom: Lots of people are going to tell you that for the rest of your life... so you got to kick them in the throat and then while their down you have to rip there tongues out, you hear me?
Me: Yes mommy."

So you see I have 15 years experience in this, that’s one year more then you norad! So I am the authority here, not you!

Norad thinks I'm immature... thats not true: I'm just High :m: :D

my theory is that intelligent beings from another planet genetically engineered us from primates


Before you get the cart moving, you must hitch up the horse. Seems you need proof that there does exist intelligent aliens. So far that is woeful shy in the evidence department.

I believe the theory of natural selection is really science fiction.

Speculation. I believe aliens are really science fiction.

I'm merely stating things the way I see it instead of the way schools taught you...

People stated their opinons of dragons, gremlins, and things that go bump in the night during the 17th century too. Seen any lately?

For your claimed 14 years of research you have shown nothing but speculation and opinion. One doesn't need 14 years to provide as much evidence as you have given here. Those with active imaginations can do as well on the same day.

I recieved 4 complaints of ill treatment by you. I see that the members here have asked you to supply proof, links, anything beside speculation and opinion. Which you have yet to do. Further, I see that you post such as this in responce to their questioning and asking for backup to the speculations you have made. It seems you don't like someone to disagree with you and consider it ill treatment.

All you have to do JR is open your mind just a little bit instead of trying to make me feel like shit because of your disregard to other people's opinions.

As you disregard others opinions...

you are too stupid to even comprehend what I said in my last string!

No where did I see them calling you the equivalent. When you can not or will not support your assurtions I guess that is all that is left.

Wellcookedfetus. First of all, no one asked for your opinion. Second of all, if you had a brain you would do some research for yourself.

Ah, whether you realise it or not you did just that, by posting in a public forum with your own speculations, indirectly you did ask for their opinions. The requirement of proof is upon you, as you make the claim. Prehaps you would grace us with some of that, (err) research.

Yet another post by yet another person that think they are smart.

Have you looked in the mirror? Once again the only one that seems to be slinging insults is you.

I dare say if they had been as strong in their statements as you, you would be screaming to high heaven. And you call this slander?

Actually wet1, if you had looked someone already crawled down my back on this. Out of the billions of galaxies and billions of stars in each galaxy, I really don't believe we are so 'special.' Furthermore, I really don't believe that we are so 'intelligent.' Would one call a species intelligent for polluting it's own environment? I really don't believe so! Actually, there is written evidence of alien contact. Pyramids in Egypt and the Bible. Of course, both of these could be taken different ways. So, whether or not you believe it wet1, that is my belief, and I'm sticking to it! If Einstein listened to the critizisms of closed minds, then a lot of things wouldn't be where they are today. It's that simple. It's just my opinion, and really, I don't need to hear the opinions of people that only use what is taught in schools and universities. An opinion that is well thought out would be refreshing, but that won't happen on this board.

This is not about beliefs... this is about science, about evidence, hypothesis, proof and theories. If you cannot gather any physical evidence of your ideas then it is nothing more then just a belief and no one can have any assurance that it is true. the rest of your statements is a strawmen fallacy with an Ad Hominem at the end and has no relevance to your main argument what so ever.

Well, put, WFC, but it's more than a belief I have. I do have a theory, but I'm posting it at a different spot on the board since this is about biology, true science, since there is evidence here. Trying to get evidence about my theory is a different matter though, but I will get it, one way or the other. I will find it.

finding evidence for any theory is not so difficult. One only has to exclude the evidence for competing theories.

I wish it were that easy, but it isn't, trust me, especially since my theory is so out of mainstream science. Well, not really, there is some science and natural selection in my theory, but to prove the other part is a different matter.

Originally posted by norad
Well, put, WFC, but it's more than a belief I have. I do have a theory, but I'm posting it at a different spot on the board since this is about biology, true science, since there is evidence here. Trying to get evidence about my theory is a different matter though, but I will get it, one way or the other. I will find it.

Ok mind a link then?

I don't know if it would be a 'link.' As stated, it's hard to get what I require since there are people who will resist anyone's notions that are different. I'll let you know though.

thanks :cool:

The probability of just one specific protein arising by random chance shuffling of an ocean full of amino acids is no better than one in 10 to the power of 520 and thousands are needed along with an encyclopedic amount of DNA. Consider that the total atoms in the universe is estimated to be only 10 to the power of 80 making evolution all impossible.
;)

I won't dispute those odds, however, you can't express the probability of something without indicating the number of instances, or in this case, the number of collisions, and the amount of time those collisions take place.

I'm betting. (get it? betting! :D ) the soup didn't spark anything for quite a long time.

The collisions reduce the possibility of evolution further. Ever time collisions occur, any formation the molecules previous had is almost certainly broken. Like when two Toyotas collide, they become less sophisticated cars, not more advanced GM prototypes. Atheists believe in spontaneous generation in spite of those odds. :rolleyes:

It takes more energy to break the bond once it has formed.

Then it takes more than a normal collision to form the bond in the first place.

You are right. The energy comes from the system; Heat and electricity. It can also come from the release of other bonds breaking.

Then "collisions" add no more likelyhood to evolution and the Law of Probiblity. Restated:
The probability of just one specific protein arising by random chance shuffling of an ocean full of amino acids is no better than one in 10 to the power of 520 and thousands are needed along with an encyclopedic amount of DNA. Consider that the total atoms in the universe is estimated to be only 10 to the power of 80 making evolution all impossible.

correction. not impossible. unlikely.

Deist27,

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution only states how life changes, not how it started… that’s a different subject all together.

Most of my fellow creationists would reply to you that it doesn't happen. But what is the 'evolution' of the fetus in the womb of a pregnant woman, if it is not evolution in progress over the course of nine months? The root basic definiention of the word 'evolution' simply means: From a less complex pattern, design of state of being or existence, into a much more complex pattern, design or state of being or existence.
But how, you say, does evolution actually happen? Once again, in the case of the evolving fetus in the womb, starting with the egg and sperm, complex evolution doesn't begin until the proper DNA and RNA 'signal' is encoded into the fertilized egg!
There is in natural in all living things, plant or animal, within their DNA and RNA, a sort of 'time-dilation' code, if you will. In the case of the evolving fetus, this time-dilation code, is quite rapid and the completely evolved fetus takes shape in just nine months.
However, when one is referring to the evolution of one whole order or family into the order or family of a completely different plant or animal,i.e. amphibians into reptiles for instance, the time-dilation code within the DNA and RNA molecules is 'activated' much, much more slowly...over the course of 10's of thousands or even 100's of thousands of years!!! Such changes even then are for the most part very suttle.
The 'time-dilation' genetic code can and is activated by outside environmental stimuli such as in the case of the gypsy moth of England.:p

I think evolution is Entropic.

correction, not unlikely impossible

I think evolution is Entropic.

i humbly disagree.

Deist27,

Did you read what I said... your topic is not for this thread!

Faz,

so what your saying (badly) is that evolution (of species) is the alteration of alleles? I don't understand this "time-dilation code" thing either.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Deist27,

Did you read what I said... your topic is not for this thread!

Faz,

so what your saying (badly) is that evolution (of species) is the alteration of alleles? I don't understand this "time-dilation code" thing either.

Ok, badly prehaps. My field of science is not biology or genetics. Thinks of it as 'time-released alleles'. When the right genetic signals are received by the alleles, evolution can and does begin to take place. But what actually 'triggers' this signal and why, I'm not sure of ...yet. For want of a better term, I call it the 'Time-Dilation Code' or that which somehow signals or triggers evolutionary changes in cells and therefore species.

I think mutations are not enough to explain evolution (just a thought) what if our brain has control over what kinds of sperms and eggs we produce (for both female and male) what if we can think and change what we are - and the can control and alter our species just by thinking. MORE than anything this is a question is there any studies of thought & moods affecting an individuals sperms and eggs ??

What are the effects of mood and thought to the whole reproduction process.

About the aliens - where are they now I think we need them in these times of turmoil

I am Turkish and please excuse my spelling errors:rolleyes:

The evolution process and how genes change was the starting of this discussion but I think these are of no importance today (the evolution process has a new drift) - in the sense we dont need evolution today. Say communication, a vital part of surviving, we will never evolve to the next step of it because we are able to create devices that help us with it such as phones, the internet so we will never see if we will develop ESP or some other form of communication. Same goes for health because we have hospitals that take care of us. The method mankind has developed (superior to evolution) is much faster and effective and most importantly more efficient. So we rule :)

Originally posted by bethere
I think these are of no importance today (the evolution process has a new drift) - in the sense we dont need evolution today.

Presuppositions that we can just make any change we want could lead us down a non returnable path.

Oh we could return but what super-human in their right mind would want to?

Welcome bethere,

I'm afraid I have never come upon such studies... but the hypothesis has relevance and could be tested, maybe not production is effected by the survivability of sperm is control by the female reproductive track rather well. As for ova production (eggs) all ova are made before a women is born, but the release of ova is a very competitive process between many ova that are fighting hormonally to be ejected into the fallopian tubes.

A Superhuman that could on reproduce retarded children.

Ya that can be fix with eugenics and incompatibility with old type humans...

If we are going to insist on genetic manipulation for Uber Human,
maybe we should start with influencing the rates and timing of development/maturation of the well cooked fetus. Large scale phenotypic change can occur with small genotypic revisions.

What for I want to stay in my jar FOREVER :D

I've always wanted an aquarium, but if you're gonna stay in that tank all of your life, could I set you on my stand and keep you?

As long as you feed me human blood every 24 hours... that and I like some fish food sprinkled on top for dessert. http://www.guru3d.com/forum/images/smilies/grhargh.gif

proteome at least get twins so they can keep each other company & play little games swimmin in their little jar

you guys are both right in part (thanks for your replys)

my first mistake is over emphasizing an individuals role in the whole evolution process. Even if we could craft any changes to our DNA just by thinking would that really be to the advantage of the whole human beings as a race (would this really make the process more efficient or better)

after all as any species we tackle the problem of survival as a group not on our own. And diversity is the main strength for a groups survival.

I will think and re-state (need to get groceries first) cant think when hungry...

:)

I wonder what you think of the modern world and how it affects the evolution process. Dont you think our choices for mating are in part imposed by TV fashion and such.

A supporting example could be a feature: height of humans, growing rapidly. (look at japanese cartoons they are opposite of what japanese people are thought to look like) and I see that this is changing their population and the new japanese kids are taller.

It is a fact that people are becoming taller but there seems to be no relavent connection of this to survival. Not like grocery stores started building their shelfs any higher and we need to be tall to feed our self.

We already are changing the way evolution process works. Not any more the survival of the fittest but the one in fashion.
:bugeye:

Originally posted by proteome
Presuppositions that we can just make any change we want could lead us down a non returnable path.

Well all roads mankind is following are one way thus non returnable. Because we are always changing for good or bad in the name of improving.

But as you said if an individual had such control over his genes it could result in a supreme being that could threaten the whole mankind. So the mother nature wouldnt give us such control. (or this wouldnt be rendered in the evolution process)

But it is the nature of humans to play with fire - so one day we will be able to engineer people.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
I'm afraid I have never come upon such studies... but the hypothesis has relevance and could be tested,

WCF I appreciate your reply - as you have stated in a sense - we still dont know many things about what our brains are capable of.

Why else would we be producing fresh sperms daily - our life experiances must be affecting the new sperms and do you know of how much information we can pass on to our offspring.

Some reflexes are passable - traits what else??

Darwins theories apply to bio organisms that live in close contact with nature. A tribe in Africa (if there are any left) is where you will see the survival of the fitest. But the modern people's world is so much different - we have cars planes phones internet hospitals - so the evolution process has taken a new drift. The competition is much different. Still the fitest survive but the definition of fiting has changed dramatically.

Agree Dissagree Any Thoughts ???

Originally posted by bethere
Agree Dissagree Any Thoughts ???

yes...if someone is going to say 'survival of the fittest' one more time I am going to report them to the ignorance police

:) which one is correct - eng is my second language.

Survival of the athletic. :confused:

Originally posted by bethere
:) which one is correct - eng is my second language.

Survival of the athletic. :confused:

it not the english, it is the concept that is wrong.

Deist27:

We can be thankful that chance alone did not create the first proteins. If chance alone had been responsible, it never would have happened. Luckily, the laws of chemistry were there too.

Faz,

I think what your referring to is a "Operon" a gene or group of genes that a turned on or off by chemical signals. For a further understanding you could check out this link http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/L/LacOperon.html
That’s the most well study operon: the lac operon in E. Coli. Anyways that’s kind of technical site though.

If you have any further question please ask me.

bethere,

wohoho you got some major posting action there! try to use the edit feature more often. About sperm and egg production: Sperm and ova and produced indiscriminately, but the female reproductive track is very picky and filters out only the best sperm and ova... it is also known that these filtering mechanism are variable, what is not known is how the brain controls these mechanisms.

Spuriousmonkey,

Don’t confuse people… survival of the fittest is a very simple single sentence way of explain evolution and at times is easily misinterpreted. A slightly better interpretation would be: Survival of those that are able to reproduce in a particular environment.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
yes...if someone is going to say 'survival of the fittest' one more time I am going to report them to the ignorance police

At last someone on this forum that SEES the light. Survival of the fittest(sorry spuriousmonkey) isn't involved in the spontaneous evolution of genes and therefore cells and therefore the creation of new species...at all!!!
If that were the case my friends...we humans (Homo Sapiens) would have been replaced by the more capable species a long time ago! remember...the Neanderthals were far more capable to adapting to their environment than the Cro Magnons!
Most insects species and even tiny bacterium are by far much more adapted 'survival of their fittest' then humans. We should all be a race of super-humans by now if 'survival of the fittest' really had anything to do with evolution of species. It's in the genes, and the chemical signals the DNA and RNA receive to 'unlock' the evolutionary process towards a new species!!!

WCF - yeah I should remember that next time I admit I got carried away :) less posts + more edits = better posts!
Thanks for the info about FRtrack and how it works.

Originally posted by Faz
It's in the genes, and the chemical signals the DNA and RNA receive to 'unlock' the evolutionary process towards a new species!!!

Ok than tell me what is the stimuli for this chemichal signal to be released. Why do organisms need to change. (to adapt to survive or just random chance) Explain yourself and state your (or the)theory...

(Faz thanks for your post)

faz
Please have a MULTIDICIPLINARY aproach to evolution, biology is NOT enough to explain it. Only than you can have a more complete theory. Adapting to nature is just one face of things. What about social structures what about who takes care of the offspring (family structures) and how well the offspring is tought new skills already known by the parents (or newly acquired) - the flow of information thru generations. So many other factors should be taken into account in explaining evolution.

As you said insects are far better in adaptation - but surviving by adaptation is not only about how fast your DNA changes. As you said we cant adapt fast enough biologically and this is an ADVANTAGE becasue it makes us use our brains more and be more intelligent to survive thus rendering us superior to other species becasue we use our intelligance better. (believe it or not we are super humans brain wise -mankinds capacity to process information is growing exponentially!!)

spuriousmonkey - survival of the more responsive to change - like this better??:p

Originally posted by Dudeyhed
what i mean is, how does DNA actually change?

It's a great question, and I'm glad we're fighting about how it happens and how it doesn't.

What are the factors that determine which gamete genes recombine to form a zygote? Completely, random?

Originally posted by Faz
At last someone on this forum that SEES the light. Survival of the fittest(sorry spuriousmonkey) isn't involved in the spontaneous evolution of genes and therefore cells and therefore the creation of new species...at all!!!
If that were the case my friends...we humans (Homo Sapiens) would have been replaced by the more capable species a long time ago! remember...the Neanderthals were far more capable to adapting to their environment than the Cro Magnons!
Most insects species and even tiny bacterium are by far much more adapted 'survival of their fittest' then humans. We should all be a race of super-humans by now if 'survival of the fittest' really had anything to do with evolution of species. It's in the genes, and the chemical signals the DNA and RNA receive to 'unlock' the evolutionary process towards a new species!!!

that's not what I meant. I have said it at least twice in other threads what's wrong with survival of the fittest and I am not going to repeat it again. In short..some asshole suggested to replace the term natural selection with survival of the fittest, but the problem is that everybody subsequentely misinterprets survival of the fittest. As can be seen in this quote.

I think what spuriousmonkey means is that the word "fittest" tends to imply "best" in some objective sense. When what is happening in the real world is just adaptation to a specific set of variables.

An individual or group can be said to be fittest for a particular environment, but not fittest in some grander way.

Many people tend to see evolution as a series of steps toward some goal ( a goal such as human beings). We all have that series of images in our heads: monkeys, to ape men, to modern man carrying his spear. And we like to beable to think linearly like that. But actually Homo sapiens are not the "fittest" beings on the planet. "Fittestness" depends on the situation.

From a heat vent worm's point of view, humans are fragile and weak, not even able to withstand the comfortable environment surrounding the volcanic cracks in the ocean's floor.

Originally posted by MFrobotH43D
I think what spuriousmonkey means is that the word "fittest" tends to imply "best" in some objective sense. When what is happening in the real world is just adaptation to a specific set of variables.

An individual or group can be said to be fittest for a particular environment, but not fittest in some grander way.

Many people tend to see evolution as a series of steps toward some goal ( a goal such as human beings). We all have that series of images in our heads: monkeys, to ape men, to modern man carrying his spear. And we like to beable to think linearly like that. But actually Homo sapiens are not the "fittest" beings on the planet. "Fittestness" depends on the situation.

From a heat vent worm's point of view, humans are fragile and weak, not even able to withstand the comfortable environment surrounding the volcanic cracks in the ocean's floor.

Dear whoever: Ok, enough said on the topic of what really causes evolution. I always look to nature and nature's God for answers to such far reaching and unknown realms of knowledge and discovery. And nature's God has suggested as always that I simply look to His creation. "What creation and what species, I questioned?" "Why my child, search for your answer in the lowly caterpillar."
Ok, caterpillar: Now what? The caterpillar is an insect that under goes what is commonly called 'metamorphosis'. It can change in a matter of a few short months into a completely different looking creature! It is the same species obcourse, but look how different it has become in shape, size and appearance. Why it even has the ability to fly now!! "Gee...is that the answer I wondered?" Evolution is nothing more than a kindof long drawn out version of metamorphosis...like some dinosaurs actually developing feathers in place of their scales! And did this metamorophic change actually occur in a very short time(months or years) or was it something that took thousands of years? Hmmmm, ,maybe this is why there are so many 'gaps' or 'missing links' in the fossil record. The evolutionary change from one species into a completely different looking one, and different family, took place too rapidly to leave a 'trail' of gradual changes.
Then I think Steven Gould has already been down this road of thinking with his 'Punctuated Equalibrium' theory. It's still in the genes, in the genes....

Have mercy on my soul. I have attention deficit dissorder. I promise; you can condense your posts.

Faz,

I disagree with your time line of evolution... the speed is dependent on the level of advantage a trait has the reproductive rate of the organism. As for fossil record gap that is due to the fact that only 1 out of 6000 species has over the last 300 million years, been fossilized and found. So its very unlikely we will ever fill the gaps in the fossil record.

Dear FAZ,

I find your explanation very interesting. Can you supply some links about this line thought (I want to read further on this). Is this already a counter argument (or a co-existing one).

Do you look at the 9 months a fetus spends as a metamorphosis similar to the caterpilars.

What do you imply when you say it is all in the genes do you mean it is premapped just wiaiting to happen.

FAZ and everyone, the thread topic is "How does evolution actually happen". It assumes that evolution does happen.

The phrasing cleverly disguises its message: That which is observable is not evolution. It is something different.

I think Faz's statement that "Evolution is nothing more than a kind of long drawn out version of metamorphosis" doesn't support this thread.

If this is an evolution/creation debate, can we please take it to another thread where we can get off on providing supporting arguments?

The post belongs here because evolution can't have happened. The Mathamatical Laws of Probibly make it an IMPOSSIBLILTY.

The 9 months a fetus spends does is not similar to the metamorphosis of caterpilarsexcept if one has a vivid imagination.

I never said it is all in the genes. This we know because identical twins have exact same genes but are two very different people although they look alike.

Deist27,

Your talking about abiogenesis, not evolution! Evolution only states how life changes over time, not how life started!

If there is not "abiogenesis", there can be no evolution! Evolution states not only how life changes over time, but also that it evolves, that could be discribed as abiogenesis on a regular basis new species comming into existance:confused:

Abiogenesis: how life formed from pre-biotic molecules.

Evolution: "Reproducing elements will change in characteristics over time due to environmental stimulus that determines the survivability of deferent traits."

I don't see a conflict with these two?

It seems he's trying to argue that abiogenesis there would be no DNA for the process evolution to work with. However, there is no reason to link the two in a discussion as they appear too be two separate issues.
1) Where did the first 'organism' come from
2) How did it diversify

This thread was aimed at #2, and the first should be argued elsewhere.

However the statement "The Mathamatical Laws of Probibly make it an IMPOSSIBLILTY" gives me the feeling that a rhetoric hound is in our midst. Especially since 'probibly' would not prove anything as being impossible, just unlikely.

Darwin believed that the little variations we see between one person and another, one fish and another, when chosen by natural selection, could build up in an unlimited way. You could breed guppies, selecting for large tails. By allowing only the guppies with the largest tails to breed you are able to get guppies with tails more than twice as big as the ones started with. This would correspond in nature, but because of genetic limits it is impossible to develop either a breed of guppies with tails as big as a whale, or develop whales from guppies by selective breeding. Genetic limits are real! They are real for natural selection as well as for selective breeding.

Changing works to a point, but don't do like John the book keeper who was good at math and knew that his son John Junior was five feet tall and was now growing about an inch a year. Junior had outgrown his bed, and John wanted to get him one he could use all the rest of his life, so John did the arithmetic. Figuring the inch a year on out into the future, if Junior lived another 60 years it should add another 60 inches, he should be 10 feet tall! So John special ordered a bed just over ten feet long. He did not take into account a genetic limit that permits growth for a period, and then stops it.
:confused:

Why so they always resort to name calling when logic faisl them?:m:

Originally posted by Deist27
This would correspond in nature, but because of genetic limits it is impossible to develop either a breed of guppies with tails as big as a whale, or develop whales from guppies by selective breeding. Genetic limits are real! They are real for natural selection as well as for selective breeding.
You say this based on a very small number of selective breeding exercises over 'maybe' 20 generations. Natural selection had a much larger time frame.

...but don't do like John the book keeper who was good at math and knew that his son John Junior was five feet tall and was now growing about an inch a year... 10 feet tall. He did not take into account a genetic limit that permits growth for a period, and then stops it.
This is a different case. Within an individual there may be a genetic limit to traits like height. However, you can selectivly bread so that the 'genetic limit' increases. This is like the butterfly argument, in that it completely argues around the point.

Originally posted by Deist27
Why so they always resort to name calling when logic faisl them?:m: Because do to your posting habits it appeared as if you are not thinking for youself but just taking from other source.

Here is one such source:
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Method.htm

At the very least quote your sources and don't supply it as your own

Over time, the guppies with the longest tails become the guppies least likely to survive because they are not the optimum size tails for guppies. What happens in nature is the guppies change BACK to their original size tails. Changes occur in nature up to a certain point, but circumstances change yet again and the guppies turn into their nominal size tails again. Thus no evolutionary change happens due to genetic alterations.
[b]
.
You can NOT selectivly bread so that the 'genetic limit' increases beyond a certain point. If you brred too far, say with guppies or dogs, you kill off the species. Like an over-bred poodle that is weak and frail:D

exactly! and, that's what's going to happen with human cloning as well...they are going to be weak, unhealthy and eventually die-off. it's "akin" to over-breeding, if you will.

Originally posted by Deist27
You can NOT selectivly bread so that the 'genetic limit' increases beyond a certain point. If you brred too far, say with guppies or dogs, you kill off the species. Like an over-bred poodle that is weak and frail:D You are correct in that there are limits applied by physical circumstances which prevent certain sizes from being worthwhile to evolution. However, the sizes we are discussing are obviously possible due to their existance in nature. Another problem is that this does not take mutations into account, as this has the ability to introduce new gene variations and thus increase diversity. (Even if 999 out of 1000 mutations result in death or no effect, you have a huge number of individuals to work with)

The sizes we are discussing are obviously impossiblre. Therfor they must have been created due to their existance in nature.

Mutations further weaken genetic diversity. Since 999 out of 1000 mutations result in death, mutations can potentially destroy all ike on earth. Mutations cause Genetic information to be reduced. natural selection acts as a sieve which eliminates weaklings or those with incomplete structures (arms, legs, eyes, etc.) that may have arisen because of mutations. An arm becoming a wing, for example, would be a bad arm and discarded by natural selection before becoming a good wing.

Originally posted by Deist27
The sizes we are discussing are obviously impossiblre. Therfor they must have been created due to their existance in nature.
No... if something exists then it is not impossible. Even if it was created, it's not impossible.

Mutations further weaken genetic diversity.
No they increase diversity. When you say 'weaken genetic diversity' that implies that diversity is lessening. Mutations may kill some, but those who survive are more diverse.

Since 999 out of 1000 mutations result in death
I didn't say this. I said death or no effect.

mutations can potentially destroy all ike on earth
Mutations do not affect every individual, and they don't kill every individual they affect, so this comment has no basis.

Mutations cause Genetic information to be reduced.
See above

natural selection acts as a sieve which eliminates weaklings or those with incomplete structures (arms, legs, eyes, etc.) that may have arisen because of mutations.
Then the resemblance of species physically and genetically, and the transitory fossils found are all because god didn't want to start over from scratch on each new creature?

An arm becoming a wing, for example, would be a bad arm and discarded by natural selection before becoming a good wing.
No. An arm with a web still functions for short gliding. Add feathers and you have insulation. Add both and you have a bird's wing.

Mutations further weaken genetic diversity resulting in death or no change
mutations can potentially destroy all ike on earth[/b]
Mutations do not affect every individual becuse not all have mutations. They don't kill every individual they affect,because most mutations result in no change. Mutations thus cause Genetic information to be reduced if they hav an effect.

natural selection acts as a sieve which eliminates weaklings or those with incomplete structures (arms, legs, eyes, etc.) that may have arisen because of mutations.
Transitory fossils have NEVER been found. Show us a single one.

An arm becoming a wing, for example, would be a bad arm and discarded by natural selection before becoming a good wing.
Yes. Mutations (rare and random changes in complex living systems) do not provide new traits to be selected. They merely rearrange the traits that already exist in a species, sometimes repeating, sometimes deleting what is already there. As expected…most mutations are either lethal or harmful to the organism experiencing them. Perhaps one mutation out of a thousand might be neutral.

an eye or wing coming into being) has ever been found in either living or fossil specimens. Natural selection is a conservation mechanism, not one of innovation as required by evolution. Evolution requires new traits. Natural selection does not provide any; it merely selects what is already present.]

Evolution requires new traits


actually, that is quite true...in a nut-shell, evolution is ALL ABOUT creating new traits...in order for future survival.

Good point Pumpkin...;)

Originally posted by Deist27
natural selection acts as a sieve which eliminates weaklings or those with incomplete structures (arms, legs, eyes, etc.) that may have arisen because of mutations.
Once again... just repeating yourself

Transitory fossils have NEVER been found. Show us a single one.
How about these?
http://www.realitymatters.com/Images/skull1.jpg http://www.realitymatters.com/Images/skull2.jpg http://www.realitymatters.com/Images/skull3.jpg
taken from here (http://www.realitymatters.com/hominid.html)
This link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html) has other ape->human skulls and shows that even creationists can not tell decide if the transitional fossils are more ape or more human.

http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/cynognathus.jpg
taken from here (http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html)

And finally from here (http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm) :

<ul>
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
<ul>
<li>
Cladoselachians (e.g., <i>Cladoselache</i>).
<li>
Hybodonts (e.g. <i>Hybodus</i>)
<li>
Heterodonts (e.g. <i>Heterodontus</i>)
<li>
Hexanchids (e.g. <i>Chlamydoselache</i>)
</ul>
Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
<ul>
<li>
Palaeoniscoids (e.g. <i>Cheirolepis</i>); living chondrosteans such as
<i>Polypterus</i> and <i>Calamoichthys</i>, and also the living acipenseroid
chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes.
<li>
Primitive holosteans such as <i>Semionotus</i>.
</ul>
Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
<ul>
<li>
Leptolepidomorphs, esp. <i>Leptolepis</i>, an excellent holostean-teleost
intermediate
<li>
Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels)
<li>
Clupeomorphs (e.g. <i>Diplomystus</i>)
<li>
Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. <i>Portheus</i>)
<li>
Protacanthopterygians
</ul>
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
<ul>
<li>
Paleoniscoids again (e.g. <i>Cheirolepis</i>)
<li>
<i>Osteolepis</i> -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes,
still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of
lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones,
and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
<li>
<i>Eusthenopteron</i> (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) --
intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest
amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone.
Fins very like early amphibian feet.
<li>
Icthyostegids (such as <i>Icthyostega</i> and
<i>Icthyostegopsis</i>) --
Terrestrial amphibians with many of <i>Eusthenopteron</i>'s fish features
(e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about
whether <i>Icthyostega</i> should be considered a fish or an amphibian;
it is an excellent transitional fossil.
<li>
Labyrinthodonts (e.g., <i>Pholidogaster</i>, <i>Pteroplax</i>) -- still have some
icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g.,
the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the
nasal passage for air intake is well defined.)
</ul>
Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
<ul>
<li>
Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. <i>Seymouria</i>) -- classic labyrinthodont
skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits;
amphibian ankle.
<li>
Cotylosaurs (e.g. <i>Hylonomus</i>, <i>Limnoscelis</i>) -- slightly amphibian
skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton
classically reptilian.
<li>
The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I
won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid
reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles
(icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians,
lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't
have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which
gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds).
</ul>
Transition from reptiles to mammals:
<ul>
<li>
Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between
the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next)
<li>
Therapsids (e.g. <i>Dimetrodon</i>) -- the numerous therapsid
fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to
mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth
differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles,
the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the
whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium
(major bone of the hip) expands forward.
<li>
Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. <i>Cynognathus</i>) -- very mammal-like reptiles.
Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic
mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly
differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for
the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian
scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of
bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably <b>reptilian</b>
jaw joint.
<li>
Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. <i>Tritylodon</i>,
<i>Bienotherium</i>) -- skull
even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has
reptilian jaw joint.
<li>
Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. <i>Diarthrognathus</i>) -- has all the mammalian
features of the tritilodonts, and has a <b>double</b> jaw joint; both the
reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side,
in <i>Diarthrognathus</i>'s skull. A really stunning transitional fossil.
<li>
Morganucodonts (e.g. <i>Morganucodon</i>) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint,
but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are
beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of
the middle ear).
<li>
Eupantotheres (e.g. <i>Amphitherium</i>) -- these mammals begin to show the
complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and
eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint.
<li>
Proteutherians (e.g. <i>Zalambdalestes</i>) -- small, early insectivores with
molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian
molars.
<li>
Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to
placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the
monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes
in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils".
[see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end]
</ul>
Transition from reptiles to birds:
<ul>
<li>
<i>Lisboasaurus estesi</i> and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like
reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of
early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been
a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead.
<li>
<i>Protoavis</i> -- this is a <b>highly controversial</b> fossil that may or may not be
an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to
determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it
in case people have heard about it recently.
<li>
<i>Archeopteryx</i> -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits,
claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight
muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. <i>Archeopteryx</i>
could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from
the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large
flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds).
<li>
"Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] --
A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after <i>Archeopteryx</i>.
Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized
sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also
has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian
pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how
long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
<li>
"Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] --
This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after <i>Archeopteryx</i>. It still
has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is
medium-length with a fused tip (<i>Archeopteryx</i> had long, unfused tail;
modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with
the Las Hoyas bird.
<li>
Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. <i>Hesperornis</i> and <i>Ichthyornis</i>. Skeleton
further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand
bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are
missing in modern birds.
<li>
[note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can
be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other
modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth.]
</ul>
</ul>
<p>
Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.
<ul>
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates:
<ul>
<li>
Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like
clawed primates with generalized nails.
<li>
<i>Notharctus</i>, an early Eocene lemur
<li>
<i>Parapithecus</i>, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene)
<li>
<i>Propliopithecus</i>, a small primate intermediate between <i>Parapithecus</i>
and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters.
<li>
<i>Aegyptopithecus</i>, an early ape.
<li>
<i>Limnopithecus</i>, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons.
<li>
<i>Dryopithecus</i>, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes.
<li>
<i>Ramapithecus</i>, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the
hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor.
<li>
<i>Australopithecus</i> spp., early hominids. Bipedal.
<li>
<i>Homo habilis</i>.
<li>
<i>Homo erectus</i>. Numerous fossils across the Old World.
<li>
<i>Homo sapiens sapiens</i>. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs
here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.)
<li>
<i>Homo sapiens neanderthalensis</i> (not on the direct line to <i>H. sapiens
sapiens</i>, but worth mentioning).
<li>
[I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well
covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general-
interest books on human evolution.]
</ul>
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents:
<ul>
<li>
Paramyids, e.g. <i>Paramys</i> -- early "primitive" rodent
<li>
<i>Paleocastor</i> -- transitional from paramyids to beavers
<li>
[yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but <i>Paramys</i> and its
friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with
about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.]
</ul>
Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins):
<ul>
<li>
<i>Pakicetus</i> -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found.
It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a
land animal (tip of snout). The ears were <b>partially</b> modified for
hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils
of land mammals, suggesting this early whale <b>maybe</b> could walk on land.
<li>
<i>Basilosaurus isis</i> -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the
Eocene (after <i>Pakicetus</i>). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant
of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and
must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging
forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation
for this long-bodied, serpentine whale.
<li>
Archaeocetes (e.g. <i>Protocetus</i>, <i>Eocetus</i>) -- have lost hind legs entirely,
but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils.
<li>
Squalodonts (e.g. <i>Prosqualodon</i>) -- whale-like skull with <b>dorsal</b>
nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth.
<li>
<i>Kentriodon</i>, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth.
<li>
<i>Mesocetus</i>, an early whalebone whale
<li>
[note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing
that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.]
</ul>
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores:
<ul>
<li>
Miacids (e.g. <i>Viverravus</i> and <i>Miacis</i>) -- small weasel-like animals
with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth.
<li>
Arctoids (e.g. <i>Cynodictis</i>, <i>Hesperocyon</i>) -- intermediate between
miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more
specialized, braincase is larger.
<li>
<i>Cynodesmus</i>, <i>Tomarctus</i> -- transitional fossils between arctoids
and the modern dog genus <i>Canis</i>.
<li>
<i>Hemicyon</i>, <i>Ursavus</i> -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids
and the bears.
<li>
<i>Indarctos</i> -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action,
molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the
modern genus <i>Ursus</i>.
<li>
<i>Phlaocyon</i> -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials,
transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.)
</ul>
Meanwhile back at the ranch,<br>
<ul>
<li>
<i>Plesictis</i>, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids
(weasels et al.)
<li>
<i>Stenoplesictis</i> and <i>Palaeoprionodon</i>, early civets related to the
miacids (see above)
<li>
<i>Tunguricits</i>, transitional between early civets and modern civets
<li>
<i>Ictitherium</i>, transitional between early civets to hyenas
<li>
<i>Proailurus</i>, transitional from early civets to early cats
<li>
<i>Dinictis</i>, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats
<li>
<i>Hoplophoneus</i>, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats
</ul>
Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals:
<ul>
<li>
Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic
mammalian teeth and clawed feet.
<li>
Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt
crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws.
<li>
Late condylarths, e.g. <i>Phenocodus</i> -- a fair-sized animal with
hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of
crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone
(like modern hoofed animals).
<li>
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls:
<li>
[Perissodactyls are animals with an <b>odd</b> number of toes; most of the
weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.]
<li>
<i>Tetraclaeonodon</i> -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like
teeth
<li>
<i>Hyracotherium</i> -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with
more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly
different tooth cusps, compared to to <i>Tetraclaeonodon</i>. A small, doggish
animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes
in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.
<li>
[The rest of horse evolution will be covered in an upcoming "horse
fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your appetite:]
<li>
<i>Orohippus</i> -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests
<li>
<i>Epihippus</i> -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser
<li>
<i>Epihippus (Duchesnehippus)</i> -- a subgenus with <i>Mesohippus</i>-like teeth
<li>
<i>Mesohippus</i> -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
<li>
<i>Miohippus</i> -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of
successful three-toed browsers]
<li>
<i>Parahippus</i> -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot"
<li>
<i>'Parahippus' leonensis</i> -- a <i>Merychippus</i>-like species of <i>Parahippus</i>
<li>
<i>'Merychippus' gunteri</i> -- a <i>Parahippus</i>-like species of <i>Merychippus</i>
<li>
<i>'Merychippus' primus</i> -- a more typical <i>Merychippus</i>, but still very
like <i>Parahippus</i>.
<li>
<i>Merychippus</i> -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony
(gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers)
<li>
<i>Merychippus (Protohippus)</i> -- a subgenus of <i>Merychippus</i> developing
<i>Pliohippus</i>-like teeth.
<li>
<i>Pliohippus</i> & <i>Dinohippus</i> -- <b>one</b>-toed grazers, spring-footed
<li>
<i>Equus (Plesippus)</i> -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler.
<li>
<i>Equus (Hippotigris)</i>, the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
<li>
<i>Equus (Equus)</i>, the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys.
[note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating
that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
<li>
Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs
<li>
Heptodonts, e.g. <i>Lophiodont</i> -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional
to modern tapirs
<li>
<i>Protapirus</i> -- a probable descendent of <i>Lophiodont</i>, much like modern
tapirs but without the flexible snout.
<li>
<i>Miotapirus</i> -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional
between <i>Protapirus</i> and the modern <i>Tapirus</i>.
<li>
Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos
<li>
<i>Caenopus</i>, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the
hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos.
<li>
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls
(cloven-hoofed animals):
<li>
Dichobunoids, e.g. <i>Diacodexis</i>, transitional between condylarths
and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like
but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle.
<li>
<i>Propalaeochoerus</i>, an early pig, transitional between <i>Diacodexis</i> and
modern pigs.
<li>
<i>Protylopus</i>, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between
dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through
<i>Protomeryx</i>, <i>Procamelus</i>, <i>Pleauchenia</i>, <i>Lama</i> (which are still alive;
these are the llamas) and finally <i>Camelus</i>, the modern camels.
<li>
<i>Archeomeryx</i>, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the
dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through
<i>Eumeryx</i>, <i>Paleomeryx</i> and <i>Blastomeryx</i>, <i>Dicrocerus</i> (with antlers) and
then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer --
muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc.
<li>
<i>Palaeotragus</i>, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi &
giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since <i>Palaeotragus</i> and
is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After <i>Palaeotragus</i> came
<i>Giraffa</i>, with elongated legs & neck, and <i>Sivatherium</i>, large ox-like
giraffes that <b>almost</b> survived to the present.
</ul>
</ul>
So, there's a <b>partial</b> list of transitional fossils.
<p>
This really only scratches the surface since I left out all groups
that have no surviving relatives, didn't discuss modern amphibians or
reptiles, left out most of the birds, ignored the diversity in modern
fish, didn't discuss the bovids or elephants or rodents or many other
mammal groups.... I hope this gives a taste of the richness of the
fossil record and the abundance of transitional fossils between major
vertebrate taxa.
<p>
By the way, notice that this list mostly includes transitional fossils
that happened to lead to modern, familiar animals. This may
unintentionally give the impression that fossil lineages proceed in a
"straight line" from one fossil to the next. That's not so; generally
at any one time there are a whole raft of successful species, only a
few of which happened to leave modern descendents. The horse family is
a good example; <i>Merychippus</i> gave rise to something like 19 new
three-toed grazing horse species, which traveled all over the Old and
New Worlds and were very successful at the time. Only one of these
lines happened to lead to <i>Equus</i>, though, so that's the only line I
talked about. Evolution is not a ladder, it's a branching bush.<p>


They merely rearrange the traits that already exist in a species, sometimes repeating, sometimes deleting what is already there.
There is once again no basis to this argument. Mutations can add a genetic sequence which doesn't already exist.

As expected…most mutations are either lethal or harmful to the organism experiencing them.
No they aren't. Chances are that you have mutated genes in your body. They just won't get passed on unless they are in your reproductive organs.

an eye or wing coming into being) has ever been found in either living or fossil specimens.
I'll repeat the fossil names from the info above:
Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds"
Protoavis
Archeopteryx
"Chinese bird"
"Las Hoyas bird"
Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis and Ichthyornis.

Natural selection is a conservation mechanism, not one of innovation as required by evolution. Evolution requires new traits. Natural selection does not provide any; it merely selects what is already present.
True, natural selection only limits the choice, but mutations can increase the choice.

[You are too dangerous to give that

"ape->human skulls and shows that even creationists can not tell decide if the transitional fossils are more ape or more human."
The 3 ape skulls you showed are not human. They all appear about the same time and there is not transitional forms leading one to the other. You practice deception. Same applies to all your other alleged examples. They are separte and distinct species all with no transitional forms none.

So, there's NO list of transitional fossils not partial not complete and mutations are destructive even destroying earlier mutation that occured mutations can increase the choice but a later mutations decrease the choice far more often. Thus no gain thru change.

Taking one more of your false examples - Archeopteryx existed BEFORE the reptiles they allegedly evolved from.

As soon as a transitionary fossil is found, creasionists then say it's really a new species. You're not going to find every single fossil in a sequence, but they have found many.

"As soon as a is "new species" is found, evolutionist then say it's really a transitionary fossil because it is a new species that has been found. You're not going to find fossils in a sequence, because they coexisted with each other therefore they can't be transitional species but separate and distinct from each other. Evolutionists line them up in a purely subjective preconceived way.

Don't forget genetic linage Persol which more then verifies that view.

There's been a lot of interesting stuff said but I'm still not really sure about how the actual changes occur.

Here's my understanding of the evolutionary process so far. I should note that I'm just a high school student so i'm not going to say that what I'm about to say is the truth, in fact, I could be completely incorrect. (like my spelling often is.)

ok...

A certain species exists. Something in their habitat changes, eg, new preadatorial (is that a word?) species (or old species becomes more efficient), competition for food increases, climate change, etc...

A community of a certain species has a gene pool. Those organisms which have genes better suited for the change in habitat will be more likely to survive and are often the ones that will produce the new generations as they are the ones that will survive the change. (my understanding of natural selection)

over many years of habitat change, the community will continue to be 'naturally selected'. But that's were I don't really understand evolution. According to the way i understand it all, its still the same genotypes (maybe by genotype I'm meaning chromesome, a chromesome is one set of genes right? or am i wrong? please correct me.. I do hope to get into biology in uni...) that exist, there is no gene for new structures and the like.

How/why did monkeys loose their tails as they evolved into humans? Did the 'tail' gene just disappear over the years? maybe i can answer this for myself:

I saw a documentary once on the congo i think it was, and a point was raised about the possibility that the first stage of human evolution happened there. They showed footage of monkeys which were at the barrier of a forrest, just beside a open land, clear, without any obstacles. These monkeys would sometimes venture out of the forests and onto these open lands. And then they showed some remarkable footage of the monkeys stading up onto their hind legs, much like a human, straight backs. they were getting up to see further down the land. Perhaps it was from this community, millenia ago that the first step towards homo sapiens were made.

Perhaps in that community, as more monkies moved onto the plain, height became a more important trait than having a tail... and so those with more height and less tail were chosen as mates.. I dunno.

I could be completely wrong..

please don't comment on the story, It might be totally incorrect and innaccurate, that was something i saw years ago and I'm not saying thats just how it was.

But my explaination doesn't add up for me... how could the tail come out of existance? the gene is still there...

That's what's puzzling me.

If all orgainisms, or a great deal of then anyway, did evolve from one eons ago, how did new genes add on or drop off or how did they change?

I've seen mutation mentioned more than a few times. What exactly is mean by mutation? Do you mean the deformation of DNA? if that is so, can all evolution be soley the result of this? How common is deformed DNA? (If mutaion's got nothing to do with deformation please don't answer that question)

I hope someones got the aswer for me, let alone understands my question... there have been more than a few tangents so far...

This thread should have nothing to do with creation, just the theory of evolution.

all good questions dude

speciation: the first thing that has to happen is geographic isolation, that is, no gene transfer between isolated populations. once gene pools are isolated, changes can occur in each population independently. these changes can be random and neutral (that is, they don't have to be adaptive changes in response to some environmental condition). if one of the isolated populations is small, the differences between populations can arise very quickly. over time, differences accumulate resulting in reproductive isolation (that is, even if the separate populations come together again, they are unable to interbreed). the source of these differences (changes) between populations is genetic mutation.

genetic mutation: the genetic material of organisms is made up of DNA. DNA is comprised of long strings of 4 kinds of nucleotides (adenine (A), guanine (G), thymine (T) and cytosine (C)). Portions of these strings act as templates (blueprints) for the production of proteins (the structural and metabolic building blocks of an organism). These portions of the DNA are called genes. The different genes in an organism are different because they have different templates and these different templates are based on the different sequences of the A's, G's, T's and C's. Sometimes, during cell replication, there's a copying error in the DNA that's being copied for the new cell. When this happens in the production of gametes (the sex cells) the error is heritable and is passed on in the next generation. Sometimes the error results in a slightly different protein product than the original. Over the millions of years, these errors in replication accumulate and result in the major differences we see between species.

This is necessarily an abbreviated outline of the processes. If you want more detail or have questions, please ask.

BTW, I think that tailess monkeys are old world monkeys (chimps, baboons, etc.) and new world monkeys (americas) are tailed. A primatologist could answer that question.

Here is what actually happens but don't tell your science teacher. He will fail you...

"A certain species exists. Something in their habitat changes, eg, new preadatorial (is that a word?) species (or old species becomes more efficient), competition for food increases, climate change, etc..." resulting in extinction of the entire species or few surviving lessening and weakening the gene pool.

"A community of a certain species has a gene pool. Those organisms which have genes better suited for the change in habitat will be more likely to survive and are often the ones that will produce the new generations as they are the ones that will survive the change. (my understanding of natural selection)" Yet the stuation will change again. Much needed genetic traits to deal with the new environment had been lost by the weakening of the gene pool by earlier hostile conditions."

"there is no gene for new structures and the like." You are right
Please excuse my spelling too... Thanks
"How/why did monkeys loose their tails as they evolved into humans? Did the 'tail' gene just disappear over the years? maybe i can answer this for myself:" If the tail genes (if it works that way) dissappears, the monkey has less genetic codes and has evoled downward.

"I saw a documentary once on the congo i think it was, and a point was raised about the possibility that the first stage of human evolution happened there. They showed footage of monkeys which were at the barrier of a forrest, just beside a open land, clear, without any obstacles. These monkeys would sometimes venture out of the forests and onto these open lands. And then they showed some remarkable footage of the monkeys stading up onto their hind legs, much like a human, straight backs. they were getting up to see further down the land. Perhaps it was from this community, millenia ago that the first step towards homo sapiens were made." That is the theory Dudlyhed but nothing but conjectue supports it.

"Perhaps in that community, as more monkies moved onto the plain, height became a more important trait than having a tail... and so those with more height and less tail were chosen as mates." The key word here is Perhaps...

I could be completely wrong..

"please don't comment on the story, It might be totally incorrect and innaccurate, that was something i saw years ago and I'm not saying thats just how it was." You got the TV STORY correct. That is what is believed.

"I've seen mutation mentioned more than a few times. What exactly is mean by mutation? Do you mean the deformation of DNA?" YES and that leads to death and desesease. "if that is so, can all evolution be soley the result of this? How common is deformed DNA?" Mutaion's have to do deformations thus work against positive change.

I hope someones got the aswer for me, let alone understands my question... there have been more than a few tangents so far...

This thread should have nothing to do with creation, just the theory of evolution. [/B][/QUOTE] OK Dudly but both sides should be discussed.

Deist27:

Mutations do not weaken genetic diversity; they increase it. And they are not always to the detriment of the organism. Examples showing that are many and varied.

Thousands of "transitional" fossils exist; you just don't recognise them as such, for purely ideological reasons.

But the bottom line is: you have no viable alternative to the theory of evolution. Going by your handle, I guess you just want to settle for "God did it." That's fine, but please don't try to call it science.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
all good questions dude

speciation: the first thing that has to happen is geographic isolation, that is, no gene transfer between isolated populations. once gene pools are isolated, changes can occur in each population independently. these changes can be random and neutral (that is, they don't have to be adaptive changes in response to some environmental condition). if one of the isolated populations is small, the differences between populations can arise very quickly. over time, differences accumulate resulting in reproductive isolation (that is, even if the separate populations come together again, they are unable to interbreed). the source of these differences (changes) between populations is genetic mutation.

genetic mutation: the genetic material of organisms is made up of DNA. DNA is comprised of long strings of 4 kinds of nucleotides (adenine (A), guanine (G), thymine (T) and cytosine (C)). Portions of these strings act as templates (blueprints) for the production of proteins (the structural and metabolic building blocks of an organism). These portions of the DNA are called genes. The different genes in an organism are different because they have different templates and these different templates are based on the different sequences of the A's, G's, T's and C's. Sometimes, during cell replication, there's a copying error in the DNA that's being copied for the new cell. When this happens in the production of gametes (the sex cells) the error is heritable and is passed on in the next generation. Sometimes the error results in a slightly different protein product than the original. Over the millions of years, these errors in replication accumulate and result in the major differences we see between species.

This is necessarily an abbreviated outline of the processes. If you want more detail or have questions, please ask.

BTW, I think that tailess monkeys are old world monkeys (chimps, baboons, etc.) and new world monkeys (americas) are tailed. A primatologist could answer that question.

You say that a slight mutation occurs and this is what, over the years will cause a species to evolove. But if one gene in a gamete were to mutate, wouldn't that make it incompatible with the original complementary gene from the opposite gamete? and wouldn't that mean that the same gene would need the same mutation in the genes of the gamete?

What are the chances of that? I know you can say that it is a possibility, but seriously and realistically speaking, what are the chances of two opposite sex organism of the same species have the same mutation on the the same gene mating with each other?


And Deist27... Your comments seem to be reasonable but saying that a mutaion works against a organism is not intirely accurate. It can but I, without really knowing a great deal about mutation (see above) can see how it could have its advantages.

<i>But if one gene in a gamete were to mutate, wouldn't that make it incompatible with the original complementary gene from the opposite gamete?</i>

What do you mean by "complementary gene"? A fertilised egg gets half its genes from the male and half from the female.

jee alleles have many mutant forms and life seems to reproduce fine... maybe he mean chromosome duplication?

And Deist27... Your comments seem to be reasonable but saying that a mutaion works against a organism is not intirely accurate. It can but I, without really knowing a great deal about mutation (see above) can see how it could have its advantages. [/B][/QUOTE]

Let's say a mutation can sometimes have an advantage, say one in a million is the figure given above. The 999,999 bad mujtations would the one good one to get lost long before a good one comes along.

Actually more like 1 out of 1000 or less.

Here a good exampe of a answer to your problem:
http://nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Also, remember that a mutation might be neither good nor bad, but simply neutral.

Originally posted by Dudeyhed
You say that a slight mutation occurs

The mutations are not slight, they are either there or not, it's the resulting change in the protein that is slight.

Originally posted by Dudeyhed
and this is what, over the years will cause a species to evolove.

Yes.

(BTW I like that serendipitous mis-spelling of evolve (evolove). You should think about changing your sciforums name to that, it has so many implications).

Originally posted by Dudeyhed
But if one gene in a gamete were to mutate, wouldn't that make it incompatible with the original complementary gene from the opposite gamete? and wouldn't that mean that the same gene would need the same mutation in the genes of the gamete?

No. You may be confusing the double stranded structure of DNA with an organism being diploid. A gene is double stranded DNA, and the 2 strands, for the most part, need to be complementary. There are two copies of a gene (mostly true but there are exceptions which I can explain if you wish) in diploid organisms (one copy from father, one from mother) and one copy can be very different from