Zoology, huzzah! :: Free Realms

#5 Jul 20 2006 at 12:59 PM Rating: Excellent

Debalic

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

Kelvyquayo wrote:

Unless this is saying that Modern Man was originally a Deformed hominid that happened to be better equiped to handle things... and that somehow more deformed hominids were born and earned the right to have their own sub-classification in the genus.

Bingo.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

#6 Jul 20 2006 at 1:03 PM Rating: Decent

Scholar

6,318 posts

Jophiel wrote:

Zoophilia, huzzah!

Wha?

quadrophenia?

#7 Jul 20 2006 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good

Imaginary Friend

16,112 posts

Debalic wrote:

Kelvyquayo wrote:

Unless this is saying that Modern Man was originally a Deformed hominid that happened to be better equiped to handle things... and that somehow more deformed hominids were born and earned the right to have their own sub-classification in the genus.

Bingo.

That's a bit too far fetched for my logical mind to believe Smiley: wink2

____________________________

With the receiver in my hand..

#8 Jul 20 2006 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good

Jawbox

Scholar

5,677 posts

Genetic changes are what it's all about.

#9 Jul 20 2006 at 1:13 PM Rating: Decent

Scholar

6,318 posts

Kelvyquayo wrote:

Evolution (as I have recently been reminded) is simply a matter of logistical survival of a species....

So what is all this talk about actual "genetic changes"? I thought that nothing changed except for the ammount of members of a species who are equiped to handle their environment.. and thus logically, they are the ones who breed more successfully and then dominate.

You seem to forget the fact that the media has no need to properly use terms and is ignoring any differences between evolution and mutation.

#10 Jul 20 2006 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good

Imaginary Friend

16,112 posts

Jawbox wrote:

Genetic changes are what it's all about.

I still don't see where mutation would be made to happen because of some logistical surival pattern.

as Flea'lo pointed out in a prvious post

Quote:

Now imagine that the finch population is enough to start to eat all the available thistle seeds and now you have a some hungry finches who attempt to eat the heavier pine nuts that have fallen to the ground. Some may prove more adept at this than others because they randomly have stronger, thicker beaks or shorter legs to support themselves on the ground or whatever. Because the thistle-eaters are starving off, those capable of eating nuts are stronger and healthier and are best able to mate and, of course, they mate with other nut eaters. Their babies, coming from two nut-eating finches are more likely to also show the traits better suited to eating nuts. This doesn't mean all the thistle eaters have died though and, as the thistle population recovers, you see a rebound in thistle finches as well as the nut finches. At this point, perhaps the nut finches find it easier to stay were the nuts are rather than try to cling to a stem and pick thistles with their shorter legs and beaks and the thistle finches find it easier to remain among the thistles. Over time, the two populations may become increasingly divergent through inbreeding with their own kind until they become distinct subspecies and then, eventually their genetic codes are different enough that they've become seperate species.

All that this is saying, is that the one most fit for survival thrive and the other ones do not....

I do not see any need for "mutation" there to make it a viable concept.

____________________________

With the receiver in my hand..

#11 Jul 20 2006 at 1:25 PM Rating: Decent

Scholar

6,318 posts

I was just mentioning mutations since you were asking how genetic changes fit in, as they were not considered in evolution. I never meant that any mutations had occured, just that the media probably wouldnt distinguish betwix the two.

#12 Jul 20 2006 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good

Jawbox

Scholar

5,677 posts

Where do you think the variation in traits within a species comes from? It comes from chance combinations of genes through sexual reproduction and also occasional gene mutations. If the expression of those particular genes for the offspring provides greater fitness (however you wish to define it), then that individual has a greater chance of passing on those genetic traits to future generations.

So ultimately, it's about passing on genes. The critters are just the means to that end.

Edited, Jul 20th 2006 at 2:28pm EDT by Jawbox

#13 Jul 20 2006 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent

Scholar

6,318 posts

Jawbox wrote:

So ultimately, it's about passing on genes. The critters are just the means to that end.

So fucking is what it is all about?

Interesting. I would have guessedy the Hokey-Pokey.

Edited, Jul 20th 2006 at 2:30pm EDT by PsiChi

#14 Jul 20 2006 at 1:32 PM Rating: Excellent

Danalog

Code Monkey

7,476 posts

You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals

____________________________

Do what now?

#15 Jul 20 2006 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good

Debalic

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

Quote:

All that this is saying, is that the one most fit for survival thrive and the other ones do not....

I do not see any need for "mutation" there to make it a viable concept.

The "mutation" is what makes those finches fit for survival. A slight change in their beak structure, or digestive system, allowing them to eat the pine cones is the factor here. A mutation does not necessarily mean the specimen has three arms, seven eyes, no legs and the ability to turn green paint into orange with mental power. A "faulty" gene or a "deformed" specimen is only relative to the original species.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

#16 Jul 20 2006 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent

Imaginary Friend

16,112 posts

Quote:

If the expression of those particular genes for the offspring provides greater fitness (however you wish to define it), then that individual has a greater chance of passing on those genetic traits to future generations.

If I came from a family of brown-haired, blue-eyed people....
and..
if my great great great great grandfather had red hair and green eyes..

If my kid happens to be born with red hair and green eyes, would you call that a mutation then?

____________________________

With the receiver in my hand..

#17 Jul 20 2006 at 1:43 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591832017611

Scholar

777 posts

a Peruvian bean wrote:

Over time, the two populations may become increasingly divergent through inbreeding with their own kind until they become distinct subspecies

So does this mean we can expect the next age of mankind to begin somewhere south of the Mason Dixon?

We're screwed.

#18 Jul 20 2006 at 1:44 PM Rating: Decent

Scholar

6,318 posts

Kelvyquayo wrote:

If my kid happens to be born with red hair and green eyes, would you call that a mutation then?

Well, red hair and green eyes are usually refered to as mutations, so yes.

#19 Jul 20 2006 at 1:45 PM Rating: Excellent

Danalog

Code Monkey

7,476 posts

The Amish already have a much higher mutation rate. Hooray inbreeding!

____________________________

Do what now?

#20 Jul 20 2006 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good

Debalic

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

Kelvyquayo wrote:

If I came from a family of brown-haired, blue-eyed people....
and..
if my great great great great grandfather had red hair and green eyes..

If my kid happens to be born with red hair and green eyes, would you call that a mutation then?

<- Mutant

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

#21 Jul 20 2006 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good

Imaginary Friend

16,112 posts

PsiChi the Meaningless wrote:

Kelvyquayo wrote:

If my kid happens to be born with red hair and green eyes, would you call that a mutation then?

Well, red hair and green eyes are usually refered to as mutations, so yes.

ok, waht if I came from a family of Blondes, and 1 ancestor of mine had Black hair, and a kid I have is born with black hair then?

mutation?

I think I watched too uch Tennage Mutant Ninja Turtles Smiley: grin

and that basically any birth that is not the most common average birth should be concidered a mutation?>

It still seems to be pretty random then...

____________________________

With the receiver in my hand..

#22 Jul 20 2006 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good

Jawbox

Scholar

5,677 posts

It's not a mutation if the genes capable for producing that trait in your child are already present in you and your ladyfriend. It's simply a matter of the right sets of existing alleles being recombined in your offspring.

Mutations are abnormal genes that are pretty uncommon and almost always result in either no discernable effect or a "negative" one. But occasionally the mutated gene an offspring possesses will confer a benefit in terms of fitness rather than a liability. That mutation therefore has a good chance of being passed on to future generations.

Edited, Jul 20th 2006 at 2:49pm EDT by Jawbox

#23 Jul 20 2006 at 1:56 PM Rating: Decent

Scholar

6,318 posts

Jawbox wrote:

It's not a mutation if the genes capable for producing that trait in your child are already present in you and your ladyfriend. It's simply a matter of the right sets of existing alleles being recombined in your offspring.

So it is only considered a mutation the first time the change has occured, and after that it is just a regular gene? Smiley: confused

#24 Jul 20 2006 at 2:00 PM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Kelvyquayo wrote:

PsiChi the Meaningless wrote:

Kelvyquayo wrote:

If my kid happens to be born with red hair and green eyes, would you call that a mutation then?

Well, red hair and green eyes are usually refered to as mutations, so yes.

ok, waht if I came from a family of Blondes, and 1 ancestor of mine had Black hair, and a kid I have is born with black hair then?

mutation?

I think I watched too uch Tennage Mutant Ninja Turtles Smiley: grin

and that basically any birth that is not the most common average birth should be concidered a mutation?>

It still seems to be pretty random then...

No, that's an inherited trait. However, if no one in the species had EVER had red hair (going back to your first example), and suddenly a kid were born with red hair, that might be a genetic mutation - a fairly meaningless one, in the grand scheme of things.

Now: if red hair somehow helped that kid, and his/her kids, and grandkids, and so on, survive and adapt - THEN it would be considered an evolutionary trait. People with the trait, which started from a mutated gene but is now just part of the genome, would have a higher survivability overall and would therefore, over time, reproduce in greater numbers. And the band plays on.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#25 Jul 20 2006 at 2:12 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1594571201621

867 posts

PsiChi the Meaningless wrote:

So it is only considered a mutation the first time the change has occured, and after that it is just a regular gene? Smiley: confused

Duh.