Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology

Why is it that various advantages and deficiencies of evolutionary [courtesy of natural selection] theory are not openly debated among the [respectable] scientific community? Debates in other areas of science are not shamefully buried deep within peer-reviewed journals. Instead, they often make headlines of popular science readers such as Scientific American. This errantly leads the general public to believe that evolution by natural selection is, in fact, an all-encompassing, all-agreed upon theory by the scientific community. This is partially true. But partial truths make partial myths. Some of the forefront respectable scientists working in fields that deal with …

Hopefully someone knows more about this than I. But amino acids are made up of DNA and DNA are made up of amino acids, correct. Obviously this is a pretty vage statement, yet holds some truth correct. My question would be, how can you have one without the other to create the first living protein (not to mention how to you get life from non-life). Someone once said it's like the chicken or the egg concept, well that doesnt fly, theres gotta be a way DNA makes amino acids or visa vera. Anyone have any thoughts on this. Kevin

Okay, I know my ideas usually have a few flaws in them, sometimes thousands, but HEAR ME OUT! I have an idea on how to stop the rise of stupidity! Tell me if this is ethically fit or not in your opinion. You know selective breeding? Why can't we use it in the U.S, or other developed countries? BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT WILLING TO HAVE babies just for money, because they aren't desperate. However, in third world countries, under developed countries and such, there are large numbers of desperate people willing to have babies, and raise them for money. I was thinking, what if we took the, ahem for lack of a less vulgar word, human fertilizers from the men.…

Anyone see the show last night? It was pretty interesting. They seemed to imply that there is no longer a "missing link". Is this the case? I was also suprised to learn that there were more than one species of huminoid like creatures throughout history. Some made it, others didn't. When it was all said and done, we (humans-Homo-Sapiens) were the only ones left. Except for you Big-Foot believeres perhaps. CHUPACABRA!

I'd like some opinions on something if that's okay. I've been thinking about evolution and how it leads to intelligent life. Basically, I'm just curious if all intelligent life gradually evolves into a humanoid type of creature. Is there a progression of life and evolution that all leads to the same point? For example, on a planet like ours somewhere else, would all the same animals be there that are on earth? If not, even though they had variations, would they all still lead to something that appears to have ape-like ancestors? Personally I think its stupid to believe that there are strange creatures on other planets, I would think that anything intelligent would have ou…

I have heard figures from 80,000 years to 5 million to 20 million years....... The accepted figure seems to be one hundred thousand years ago, man first appeared... If we accept that the Universe is 15 to 18 billion years old, the milky way 12 billion years old, mother earth at 4. 5 billion years old... When do we first appear in the timeline?

If there were another earth type planet with the same conditions and if there was the same "bacteria" we all "came from", what are the chanses that it would evolve into a human type creature like on earth??

Rad Ed said that on some thread somehow relating humans technological advancements to evolution. Depressingly I think he's right. What is the cure for capitalism though? See and this is one of the things that leads me to think that our superior brain power gives us abilities that at least partially overwrite evolutionary nature. Isn't evolution supposed to kill the stuff that is dissadvantous to it. Well maybe evolution doesn't have space travel in its plans. So anyway back to the focus. Capitalism (among other social structures) holds back our progression. What is the cure, obviosly other economic ideas have problems too, so how about we just through out all this mo…

Tricky title. I don't completly believe in this evoluion and Natural selection thing. If all that crap was true, then how come humans re the only sentinent beings on the planet? What I mean is, in a closed enviroment, withou outside interference, you can't have the one major question asked, "Why?" because the being in the enviroment would have no reson to believe what they are doing is inadequite. Of coruse your argument most likely is, "but there is out side interference. The sea a bird fly, and ask wy can't they? They see a fish swim under wate for hours, and Why can't I do that?" But if that was all needed for something to start being sentinent, then why are we the…

I'm not sure I understand the proposed mechanisms by which a complex behavior in a species becomes instinct. Anyone have any insight?

Is it possible that the human biological clock has been set by a couple million years of human life on a 365-day solar cycle? If human life were to move to Mars which has a solar period at roughly twice that of Earth's, after another couple million years would it be possible that life would essentially be twice as long as the biological clock slows down, or would I just have to celebrate two birthdays a year?

How many saw that show on animal planet about the Animals of the future?? I didn't see much, but I was able to tell that who ever created it had some serious problems.... Few are able to grasp the true scope of Natural Selection. I just want to get this straight...and maybe criticize <--(can't spell) the show a bit... The ending was how squid would move on ground...and how squid would be real smart and another version would be real dumb but real smart...well... Natural selection is not when a species needs an ability they just develop it....NO! natural selection....n.s. (I don't feel lke typing) is where certain individuals have a genetic mutation wh…

I watched an interesting show on discovery recently which showed what the earth would possibly be like in the future. They were showing all sorts of creatures. But they weren't just showing creatures, they were giving all kinds of detailed info: size, weight, date (i.e. 100 million years from now), food, location...most of the information you would give for modern animals. It got to the point where I determined that they were guessing...on just about everything. Is there a science to predicting evolutionary patterns? Obviously none of it can be tested, but is there a degree in this sort of stuff or something..

It is logical that a 'species', by definition, must have all its needs (i.e.: natural selection). But why is it that we almost need all we have? Whenever something is discovered in a living thing, it is always paired to a function, or said to be of an unknown function. We never say that it doesn't have a function!

RNA predated DNA. The four bases of RNA are adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil. 4 energy molecules commonly used in our body are adenosine triphosphate (ATP), guanosine triphosphate (GTP), cytosine triphosphate (CTP), and uracil trisphosphate (UTP), each formed from nucleosides of the bases for RNA, provide energy for many biological functions. Given that, and that RNA itself can act as an enzyme, could these molecules provide a link as to how the first cells formed? Most biologists believe that in fact there is a link, but the question no one can conclusively answer is the nature of this link.

Questions about the Darwinian theory of evolution fill my mind constantly. There is no question in my mind about Creationism -- I think it is utterly wrong. I accept the evolutionary theory, however, I cant help but feel that we are missing some important aspect of it. Whether this aspect is discovered in a year, twenty years, or five hundred years, I believe it is important and it is out there and we are to find it. My question here is simple. Take a look at da Vinci's human proportions drawing: I find it amazing that we are so proportional and how we fit so perfectly inside the circle and the square. Why would this be an advantage to surviving in nature? I…

My question is this. Are we, humans, the supposedly most advanced species on the planet, a virus? Not a virus as in something that gives you a disease. No, the virus dub is just a metaphor. If anyone has ever seen the matrix (no, I'm not going to talk about that), then you would have heard one of the characters explain that humans are a virus, a parasite to this planet. So, based on this, let us reason. Over the constant evolution of Earth's inhabitants, all the species have maintained a symbiotic relationship with the Earth. The species have come close to extinction, and yet, their symbiotic relationship allowed them to surface again. However, as humans evolved, …

In evolution, genetic mutations occur according to the enviromental changes. How EXACTLY does this happen? What initially makes the DNA mutate?? I really don't understand it.

Although most people have a general consencious on the evolution of the human race through out time, one could argue that within the race, a subcatagorical race, Mexicans are actually Devolutionizing. Now I know that that might not seem like a word but it is. Mexicans orignally of Spainish decent were once a symbol of pride and hope. The rise of Constantinople, the dominance of the conquistadors and the colonization of the penninsula now known as mexico. However, it seems that with each passing generation, the race seems to lose more and more of that pride and stature. Nowhere is this more evident than in the existance of the co-founder of this site. Blike. He is the perf…

Thinking machines are our evolutionary enemies. At best we shall become childishly dependent upon them, never making serious decisions for ourselves, being allowed to do some things and not others, our civilization in the hands of another species, all major plans and decisions made without reference to our opinions by intellectually superior thinking machines. At worst, an absolute irrelevance, mankind will be placed in the role of mere biological specimen. The rise of the thinking machines is unstoppable. The material gains to be had from them will cause widespread adoption and use. Standing aside will merely cause a relevant culture to relatively decline, …

due to its development the thyroid gland is a exocrine gland, that was "converted" into a endocrine one producing the hormones T3 (Trijodthyronine) & T4 (Thyroxine) * Primarily it's connected to the oral cavity via the thyroglossal duct, which then regresses. * it is also is the only "endocrine" gland, that stores its product extracellularly (in the follicles). * these follicles can be seen as "acini" (like in pancreas), that have lost their excetory duct. (see above) does anyone know an animal in which the homologous structure to our thyroid gland still serves that exocrine purpose? afaik this hypothetical creature must be very far related to us humans, be…

I have often thought to myself about a lot of perplexing things. They don't blow my mind, they just astound me...I have always wondered, how exactly we are able to think...to conspire...to have certain views and opinions on things. Have humans evolved to much that our mind has developed consciousness? Are we sentient beings? Or are the random thoughts traveling seemlessly through our minds just simple things that we have heard before and just happen to present themselves from our memory...But then, where did we hear these things? I can find several ways to contradict my theories on the human mind right now. Even now, as I type this proposal, I think about what to ty…

From what I understand, evolution is gradual, taking many many many generations to take place. So how did something like the eye evolve? In early stages of the eyes development, it would be unusable. Many things have to take place for the eye to function properly, and since evolution doesn't just pop out new features overnight, many hundreds of generations of animals would find the primitive parts for the eye a waste of energy. Last night I was reading in my anthropology book about how this generation of human's wisdom teeth aren't as developed as some of the previous generations. It gave the explanation that since we aren't using them, there is no longer a need for …

The more biology I learn, the harder and harder it becomes for me to understand how evolution could be considered the sole perpetraitor(spelling errors) for our existence. I'm not denying that natural selection occurs, and that traits are adapted, however it is hard for me to rationalize how we went from inorganic material to living beings. I'll make this a series of threads over the next few weeks, each week posting various questions and thoughts on the subject. Hopefully some of you can offer some comments.

If we look at an electronic device with memory and computational abilities, sensory and motor abilities, and we add recognition and cognative abilities by parallel processing beyond our abilities, would it be life. It consumes electricty end excretes it to ground circuits. It is programmed to survive and reproduce itself. What do we need to prove it is alive and what also to prove it is sentient? If you put it in front of a mirror and it discovered on its own that the imaga was itself, is that enough? Just aman