habana999

And what way might that be? If you're going by "able to survive longest as a species with the least change," then horseshoe crabs, who have been more or less the same for ~450 million years, are far superior to anything we're closely related to. But then, that seems like kind of an arbitrary criterion.

I wasn't implying that any species had to be 'superior' in the way indicated in my previous post (i.e. top of the food chain), in order to survive unchanged for millions of years. I noted that as 'a' reason with regards to the human race and used dinosaurs as a comparison to back up that thought.

Horseshoe crabs haven't evolved because they have been, for 445 million years, the 'optimal design' for survival within their environment.

Obviously species evolve or don't evolve for different reasons.

It would be interesting however, to consider what 'natural' physiological changes will happen amongst humans over time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm

Susan Boyle to win Britain's Got Talent

The reason i wont accept evolution is because the information just isnt good enough for me. The same with ID and creationism some parts sound good yet other parts dont seem as good. It might make more sense if i said i accept some parts of creationism, but not all of it, yet i dont accept any of evolution. Do i acknowledge mutations happen and can be benefical yes, it has been proven, but what i dont believe is these mutation lead to the existence of all life and their design. As it has been said here many times life is complex.

This guy is a wind up, surely?

Merged post follows:

Please notice, I tried to avoid calling you a hypocrite, despite the fact that a strong argument could be made about it applying to you.

I admire your diplomacy

Huh? A bit of a non sequitur, no?

 

 

This is incorrect. Everyone has a few mutations, and most of them don't have a noticeable effect.

 

I was talking about mutations that would actually have a significant effect (i.e. severe illness or genes that would drastically change how we look) rather than those with little noticable effect

 

Nature doesn't care that you consider yourself superior. What does matter is the fact that we can now alter genetics directly and intentionally, which makes it pretty much inevitable that human beings are going to be changing quite a bit, very quickly.

I know that nature doesnt 'care' if we are superior, the fact is we are, in the same way the dinosaurs were over other species around at the time. Some lived for 35 million years with no 'significant' change.. they didn't need to adapt. Of course if we consider genetic engineering amongst humans beings, we will change rather more rapidly but still, I believe, not to the extent that that small vole has done over the last 65 million years.

Men still have another X chromosome, and only one X chromosome per cell is active in women anyway. Unless there are some other mechanisms going on (which there may be), men and women probably have the same dosages of MOA.

Men only have one X chromosome. Yes one X chromosome in a XX cell is inactivated but that inactivated X chromosome varies between cell types. So, I would imagine women are 50% less likely to have dysfunctional MOA the same way they are 50% less likely to be with sex linked 'disorders' like colour blindness. I wasnt saying that men or women had higher/lower 'dosages', just that men would have higher incidence of MOA dysfunction. Just an observation is all.

Only partly hereditary. You are right to expect a somewhat higher probability of being genetically predisposed to have a temper, but you could also have no genetic predisposition toward anger. Remember that you also get genes from your mother, and that genes can be dominant or recessive, so they could have "hidden" genes.

 

Even if you do get the temper genes from your dad, there is always the option to choose to fight it. Eg you could attend anger management course (or read on the web), if you want to get a head start to counter any tendencies you might have.

Studies show that monoamine oxidase (A & B) dysfunction can lead to aggressive and violent behavior as well as depression and substance abuse (all 'behaviours'). These enzymes breaks down chemicals like adrenalin and noradrenalin (epinephrine and norepinephrine) and are what make you 'calm down' after an argument.

Interestingly the genes coding for MOA-A & MOA-B are found on the X chromosome. Perhaps explaining why men are more likely to become involved in activities such as drug abuse and violence. I wonder how many men are in prison because of some sort of 'deficiency' that leads to anti-social behaviour?

Who's genes are we passing on?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So life and reproduction is all about passing on our genes to the next generation, right?

Yup

But we're not passing on OUR genes, we're passing on our grandparent's genes, and our great-grandparent's, etc.

Yes we ARE passing on 'our' genes, they are 'our' genes because they are unique to us. Noone else has that combination.. think genetic recombination

After several dozen generations, are there any of "our own" genes left that are getting passed on?

yes for sure, but not 100% of them (0% if as is often the case the female has been procreating with another male)

Would our ancestors of 65 million years ago appreciate that "their" genes are still being passed on by us... assuming we're still small, vole-like creatures?

Well I doubt small vole like creatures would really care. Only some groups in society today conciously care if their genes are being passed on

In another 65 million years, how many of our genes will be "in the pool", and if the answer is a big fat zero, well, what does that say about the importance of reproduction?

Well i dont think the result would be a big fat zero, obviously there are genes that enable us to live and breathe and without them we would die out. Most mutations that do occur are maladpative and therefore don't survive to the next generation, but yes of course genes will diversify over the next 65 million years but to the extent of the last 65 million years is doubtful (i think). We have reached the 'state' of being that makes us superior to the rest of the animal kingdom.

Anyway you only have to look at research which shows certain genes have been about for thousands/millions of years and have enabled us to link species to species through the ages.

As for the importance of reproduction.. well thats a done deal, our genes make us horny.. we reproduce

Merged post follows:

Who's genes are we passing on?

 

 

 

But we're not passing on OUR genes, we're passing on our grandparent's genes, and our great-grandparent's, etc.

 

Yes we ARE passing on 'our' genes, they are 'our' genes because they are unique to us. Noone else has that combination.. think genetic recombination

 

OK excuse my mistake....50% of them, but still 'ours'

Adding to what Paralith said, things like attitude are always BOTH genetic and conditioned. Trying to separate nature from nurture is an exercise in futility since the two are never perfectly separate. You can do studies (like the twin study referenced) which help to pull out which factor has a greater impact, however, it's important to always keep in mind that someones personality will always result from a combination of factors... genetics and personal life experiences... heredity and environment.

Absolutely iNow, and if you think of a hypothetical case of one sibling who is perhaps a great scholar/business man and the other who is frequently in prison, yet both brought up by the same parents in the same house going to the same school.

But look at the possible differences in life experience between the two... one is loved and cherished and perhaps came along at the 'right moment' therefore producing (through nurture) a child confident and assertive within their peer group. Or the other child who was born at a time in their parent's life when things weren't so good and as a result they grew up awkward and shy and perhaps fell victim to bullying as a result of that. But of course a complete role reversal could happen!

And where genetic recombination is concerned when no two children really are the same. They could literally.... genetically.. be like chalk and cheese.

The possibilities really are endless.

i guess i have to be quicker writing my post as I seemed to have been logged out for inactivity!!!

I have a question that has been puzzling me since studying biology of the cell and basic genetics

Why is it that the Barr body only forms in the XX phenotype and not the XY phenotype, i.e. how does one X chromosome know it has another beside it?

Interestingly while trying to find this out I came across two studies on familial skewed X inactivation stating that where a high inactivation of either the male or female X chromosome occured (it only stated female X chromosome inactivation but I am trying not to be biased here) there was a high incidence of spontaneous abortion:

'Sangha et al. (1999)' account for a significant proportion (i.e., as much as 18%) of couples with recurrent spontaneous abortion. Lanasa et al. (1999)reported similar results for women who experienced 2 or more spontaneous abortions.

Natures way of preventing hereditary genetic disease?

Comments appreciated

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=300087

Evolution IS a theory because as has been stated a number of times the only evolution that takes place that can be observed is within species and not from one species to another. How come' date=' for instance an intermediate state creature has NEVER been found in the fossil records?

[/quote']

 

 

everything is constantly in an 'intertmediate' state as you put it..thats what the theory of evolution is based on!!!

hello

Ok heres my take on this 'evolution versus creationism'

people who now believe in creationism not so long ago would never have accepted Darwin's theory. BUT now that it has been widely accepted as a bloody good explanation of how we came to be what we are today with actual 'scientific' backing they realise they would look like fools (and risk the end of their religion altogether) did they not accept at least some of it. backing their 'theory' up with quotations from a book written by 'man' (oh sorry those good people of the church/monarchy [same thing] who had so much power back in the day that they had to make sure uneducated Joe Public were god fearing people). Difference now is that people are educated...whether they like it or not and hell when you give people an education they also get an opinion. People have a hard time accepting that they just 'exist'. This whole argument is so much more sociological than scientific or theological. Anyway if the Christians finally became evolutionists (is that a word?) then the Muslims would take over because the scientists are so liberal!! And no god fearing christian wants that now do they?

if evolution doesn't have enough proof then creationism is in the crapper cause it has less evidence than evolution. QUOTE]

 

glad somebody said that!!