Do you believe in evolution?

ophiura

ophiura

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
and thats all it is, is hypothesis sad so much energy is wasted on hypotheseis

That's quite a thought.
I hope our scientists, doctor's, inventors and others are not so easily swayed by any "just a hypothesis" argument. Some have no doubt been faced with that and still carried on, much to our ultimate benefit.
I am especially glad that people recognized the benefit of moldy bread, which must have been a totally wacked out hypothesis...and pretty much an accident.
The thing about these threads is that many do not take the same time to get on the same page, with regard to terminology, or to seek out different opinions from their typical sources.
But faith, and the logic of science, as I said pages ago, do not need to be in conflict.
 
agent-x

agent-x

Member
Originally Posted by ophiura
do not need to be in conflict.
But sadly they are most of the time. I think the only people who see that are the ones who spent "time on both sides" of the debate.
 
wegonnagroove

wegonnagroove

New Member
I really enjoy this attempt of sabotage towards evolution. You ignorant religious zealots entertain me.
Evolution happens over a period of thousands, if not millions of years. Not spontaneously...
You pro-God believers need to expand your perception. Stop thinking in hundreds of years and start thinking in millions...or do you believe in a young Earth too...{EDIT} You don't know how anything happened in the begining, all that we can be sure of is that we know nothing.
They should call creationism the "Theory of God"
 
ophiura

ophiura

Active Member
WeGonnaGroove-
I'm sorry, the tone of you post is pretty borderline. Please refrain from name calling and such severe implications.
A solid opinion or belief should not rely on that sort of tone to make the point.
Frustration is rampant here, for sure, but let's all be mindful of each other and respect other opinions.
Thanks -
 
darknes

darknes

Active Member
Originally Posted by AGENT-X
Are you kidding?
Why? I was just curious; I'm trying to learn more about evolution, and this was a question that came up.
It seems to me that an organism would rather create a duplicate of itself rather than mixing genes with another organism and run the risk of having bad genes in its offspring. Although, evolution would be much faster in organisms that reproduce since there's a greater chance of mutations happening.
 
darknes

darknes

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
No question about it - start with "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea". Evolutionary Analysis is a textbook. Endless Forms is a great popularization of EvoDevo, but you should have the grounding of Triumph first. When you have abosrbed those, if you are still up for it, get a paperback copy of Dawkins' "Ancestors Tales". It is a huge book, but it covers 3.5 billion years, after all

Lol, thanks! I appreciate your help and input.
 
darknes

darknes

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
There is a hypothesis that the origins of sexual reproduction are in the Rickettsia. These are unicellular organisms that have an uncanny resemblance in their activities to sperm. The invade cells, pick up some DNA and enter another cell, where they deliver the DNA. The hypothesis is that a Rickettsial infection was the origin of DNA transfer. This would not be unlike chloroplasts and mitochondria.
Very interesting!! That would make sense to me. Maybe reproduction started as a form of parasitism where organisms forced their DNA into other organisms. This would definitely support the thinking that an organism would want to preserve it's DNA, by injecting it into other cells.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by ophiura
... But faith, and the logic of science, as I said pages ago, do not need to be in conflict.
Agreed.
Unfortunately I went out of town for several days. This thread has gone beyond my participation at this point so I'll just be monitoring it.
As Ophiura has said, keep it civil.
 
clown boy

clown boy

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
This thread has gone beyond my participation at this point so I'll just be monitoring it.
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
Why? I was just curious; I'm trying to learn more about evolution, and this was a question that came up.
It seems to me that an organism would rather create a duplicate of itself rather than mixing genes with another organism and run the risk of having bad genes in its offspring. Although, evolution would be much faster in organisms that reproduce since there's a greater chance of mutations happening.
Another interesting thing to consider when trying to figure out why sexual reproduction arose versus asexual reproduction is organisms that are able to perform both. Many of these organisms generally only undergo asexual reproduction when they are in a healthy environment and only undergo sexual reproduction when under stress or when conditions change. If the conditions are good for the parent, then the conditions should be just as good for a clone produced asexually. However, when food is limited, the environment changes or some other stress is placed on the parent the offspring may have a better change of survival through sexual reproduction resulting in new gene combinations which MAY produce offspring that are better equiped for the new environment, but also will probably produce plenty of offspring that aren't any better suited for the new environment.
 
reefreak29

reefreak29

Active Member
Originally Posted by AGENT-X
Yeah those people should be busy tring to shove their beliefs down other people's throats, right reefreak?
well there is 1000 posts on it
 
garnet13aj

garnet13aj

Active Member
Maybe I'll get this back on topic. I have a question:
At what point did organisms decide to go from replication (making identical copies of itself) to reproduction (male and female)? This doesn't seem like something that could have evolved in organisms. First of all, wouldn't 2 organisms have to develop the same mutations that would cause them to reproduce? What benefit does reproduction have for a species anyway?
I'm not a scientist (yet!) so I don't have a ton of information stored up yet. I know we've covered this topic in class and I may go look up the anser (in a peer reviewed journal!) later, but I do know the answer to the question of what benefit sexual reproduction has. Sexual reproduction increases genetic diversity in a gene pool. When asexual reproduction is going on, there is no mixing of genes, just cloning. This can leave a population particularly suseptable to disease, predation, etc. If an organism senses (consciously or unconsciously) that a lack of genetic diversity is decreasing the fitness (ability to produce offspring) in the population, they may begin sexual reproduction to counterbalance this. This obviously applies to organisms that can reproduce by both methods. The downside of sexual reproduction is the energy is wastes in producing the offspring as well as finding a mate. Obviously some organisms (mammals being an example) have evolved into beings that only reproduce sexually. Does what I said make sense? If no, please explain why and I'll try to be more clear.
and thats all it is, is hypothesis sad so much energy is wasted on hypotheseis
If I rephrased this it would go something like this "It's sad that so much energy is wasted on making educated guesses as to how some aspect of the earth works that can later be tested for evidence". Do you honestly think making educated guesses and testing them is a waste of time? Without hypotheses we wouldn't have modern medicine or machines...btw hypotheses don't have to be reserved for strictly scientific purposes. If your kid is sick, you take a number of steps to make him better. If one doesn't work, you take that information and use it to help inform you on your next plan of action to help your kid get better. In the process, you have (probably unconsciously) made a hypothesis and tested it.
 
reefreak29

reefreak29

Active Member
i think i need to know what kind of evolution is being talked about, it can mean many things. i think people are saying they believe that one species can turn into another over time correct
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
i think i need to know what kind of evolution is being talked about, it can mean many things. i think people are saying they believe that one species can turn into another over time correct
I can only speak for myself but what I understand evolution to be is heritable changes over time based on the understanding the there is perpetual change and that there are selective pressures the influence which traits are most likely to be passed on.
As far as one species turning into another, 'species' is just a word which is defined by humans and there are several different definitions of what a 'species' is. Some people, however, like Plato believed in forms and might say that every species is merely an imperfect reflection of its true form.
 
agent-x

agent-x

Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
Why? I was just curious; I'm trying to learn more about evolution, and this was a question that came up.
It seems to me that an organism would rather create a duplicate of itself rather than mixing genes with another organism and run the risk of having bad genes in its offspring. Although, evolution would be much faster in organisms that reproduce since there's a greater chance of mutations happening.

Ok, I misunderstood what you meant by it. It came off as you meant you didn't see a point in any species reproducing.
 
darknes

darknes

Active Member
Originally Posted by AGENT-X
Ok, I misunderstood what you meant by it. It came off as you meant you didn't see a point in any species reproducing.
Lol, no problem. I have NO complaints with our means of reproduction.

garnet13aj brought up a very good point that mixing genes creates genetic diversity which can help a species' survival.
 
ophiura

ophiura

Active Member
Yes, there is a benefit from genetic diversity that is the result of sexual reproduction. Animals that lack genetic diversity (cheetah's are good examples) are extremely susceptible to extinction - an minor issue can be a major risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top