We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Evolution
| 779 | 75738 |
Well a lot of people have been telling me evolution is real. They give me the most craziest surreal 'facts'. Has anyone discovered any fish with legs? Any humans with gills or fins? If you put all the pieces of a watch into you're pocket and shake it around for trillions of years, will it ever become a watch? Is there but one possibility? Or if you completely dismantle a chicken and a fish, and put it into a box, shaking it around for trillions of years. Will it ever become a fish with wings? or a chicken with fins? :l
- 779 Replies
I'm not sure what you mean, but actually i misread your post, sorry about that. The reason no Jewish babies aren't born with circumcisions are
A) It hasn't been nearly long enough for such a trivial mutation to occur, if it happened at all, it would be in tiny stages, and this couldn't happen because of such a short time and because...
B) It's pretty much completely unbeneficial, so there's no reason it should be more widespread and continue developing further.
That's not it at all. The reason that jewish babies aren't born already circumcised is that it's a physical act done to the baby after birth. The circumcision has no effect on the genes of that baby. If you cut off the arms of everyone in the world, people would still be born with two arms.
That's not it at all. The reason that jewish babies aren't born already circumcised is that it's a physical act done to the baby after birth. The circumcision has no effect on the genes of that baby. If you cut off the arms of everyone in the world, people would still be born with two arms.
I know that, that's what i thought that reiki was saying the first time i read the post. Now i thought he was saying why haven't they undergone a mutation like this, wouldn't it be beneficial?
If you cut off the arms of everyone in the world, people would still be born with two arms.
What do you think would happen if you kept cutting off a family's arms over generations? Or would it still be too built-in for a change?
Also a prime example of beneficial mutation is; People who live high up, i.e the Himalayas, are much better at dealing with the air up there than those born at sea level.
What do you think would happen if you kept cutting off a family's arms over generations? Or would it still be too built-in for a change?
Nothing. Unless they by chance had a mutation which took away one of their arms, which would be an astronomical coincidence. You could selectively breed though (why you would want to I don't know) and only have people born without an arm/arms reproduce with each other, which would greatly increase the chance of a child being born with no arms.
Going back to what I said about people adapting to air in high regions, do you think if you put someone born at sea level up in the mountains, and they had a family, would their children or grandchildren not suffer from the air
What do you think would happen if you kept cutting off a family's arms over generations? Or would it still be too built-in for a change?
That wouldn't change anything yet. You'd have to give a selective disadvantage to a certain characteristic, like, cutting the arms of those with the longest arms, less of them might survive, and over many generations perhaps people will start getting smaller arms..
Also a prime example of beneficial mutation is; People who live high up, i.e the Himalayas, are much better at dealing with the air up there than those born at sea level.
This probably isn't even due to a mutation, their physiological ability to withdraw oxygen from air is just better then ours; nothing fundamentally new. Mutation can only be seen as cause when there really is something completely different; variations are due to selection.
Going back to what I said about people adapting to air in high regions, do you think if you put someone born at sea level up in the mountains, and they had a family, would their children or grandchildren not suffer from the air
"Adapting" is different from evolving. The two can be closely linked, or not. People who have lived at sea level all their life can adapt fully to high altitude climates just by living there for a while. Rock climbers do this when they go to climb the tallest mountains in the world, they sit at the base/partially up the mountain for weeks, letting their bodies become used to operating with less oxygen. If children are born at high climates, they will never know anything different unless they leave and thus will not be bothered by it. Over a VERY long period of time, people who do not handle it as well will eventually die out (or would, if we didn't control our environment so much) due to not being able to compete as well for resources as others. We've instituted an artificial survival which, in all reality, is detrimental to our species. By allowing and supporting the weak to live and reproduce, we will actually over time hurt our species by passing on those weak genes. Genetic disorders, physical and mental abilities can all be passed down in a sense.
Oh. Then humans haven't changed in a while then, we're suited to "okay at almost everything"
Oh! I see! We need a drastic thing to happen to undergo a mutation, as we're suited to this world, but perhaps, not a post-apocalyptic one. I get it.
Can genetic mutations produce positive changes? Can you give any example?
Yes they can and I've already given examples in this thread. Bu to again reiterate we have seen lizards and bacteria mutate to digest new food sources that are more abundant than their old ones. These examples are from mutations we have observed happen resulting in evolution of a species.
As far as I know/knew were mutations neutral, or negative. I think that we could call a positive mutation an advantageous mutation, right? Because an unplanned change can't be positive, right?
No mutation is planned but that doesn't mean it couldn't have a positive effect. For instance let's say a species finds itself in a new environment with lots of snow. A mutation that causes that species fur to become white would be a benefit. There would be no plan to breed white furred offspring. It's just those who do have the mutation can hide and survive better than those who don't, so those are the ones more likely to mate in that new environment.
Out of that, why did this happen just with this baby, and not by anybody else? There is a group of believers that commit circumcision for 4000 years. Why don't they have any children with a child that already is "circumcised"? Or muslims. We are commiting circumcision for 1400 years. Why is there no muslim child that already is "circumcised"? Is something like that happening rarely?
That's not how it works. Let's say you have some who are bore with slightly shorter foreskin. With each generation those with the shortest foreskin are the ones to get to have the most kids. In this way the genes would be favoring against that trait and fore no foreskin.
But just cutting the foreskin off isn't going to have an effect on the genes to produce foreskin. Those people with mutilated genitals will still have the genes to produce the regular sized foreskin and will pass that trait on to their kids.
Why did the evolution of the eye take so less time?
Not following where your getting this question from?
And how did complex organisms evolve?
Mutations can add new genetic information. As this is added we get more complex forms of life.
A busy businessman forgets his agenda on his desk. He comes back and sees that his agenda has changed. Would this guy be happy or not? And go on. That's what I meant.
This comparison is quite flawed but let's go with it for a second. Let's say instead of scrapping it he reads over the changes and find that with them he could make 10 times what he would have. This change then would be a benefit and it would be likely the man would keep it.
Of course if the change just makes everything harder for the man he will likely scrap it and go with his original plan.
It would appear, my fellow Darwinists, that Reiki000 is just another MacFan1. Only smarter, but more prone to straying off topic.
I'm not sure I would say that just yet, he so far seems genuinely inquisitive.
Mutation is something that happens random right?
Yes then selected for by natural means in a similar way the man would select for the change that gave him more money as apposed to one that ruins his day or the original agenda. With nature the selection process is done by who can best survive rather than a conscious choice.
Let me suggest that you begin reading through the links on page one of this topic.
What do you think would happen if you kept cutting off a family's arms over generations? Or would it still be too built-in for a change?
It would not have an affect on the genes. It doesn't necessarily get any more complex than that.
Also a prime example of beneficial mutation is; People who live high up, i.e the Himalayas, are much better at dealing with the air up there than those born at sea level.
Is that mutation or just evolution through natural selection? Where the hunters with better lungs were much better at running, chasing and genuinely staying alive as a result of the harsh environment -- as a result, not only being the fittest, but also being the primary options as others would dissipate faster, they would evolve in that way.
You'd have to give a selective disadvantage to a certain characteristic, like, cutting the arms of those with the longest arms, less of them might survive, and over many generations perhaps people will start getting smaller arms..
But that isn't a result of the arms being cut off specifically -- that's lowering their survival capabilities and probabilities. If you removed the legs of the people with the longest arms, they still would not be able to reproduce as a result -- and as such you would not pass on the genes that held the trait of having long arms.
As such, over many generations perhaps people will start getting smaller arms..
Rock climbers do this when they go to climb the tallest mountains in the world, they sit at the base/partially up the mountain for weeks, letting their bodies become used to operating with less oxygen.
A few questions.
Do these traits last permanently? Even if it's just a diminished state?
Can this be compared to say, weight training, where you're put under stressful circumstances and when your body has restored itself makes sure it is capable of withstanding more? (The rejuvenation of your body in a less oxygen-concentrated air doesn't take part, of course)
Oh. Then humans haven't changed in a while then, we're suited to "okay at almost everything"
As long as we have enough water, can sustain our temperature at around 37.5 degrees celsius and aren't crushed by the pressure of deep deep water... yeah -- we're fine. We're actually quite good at some things we're not necessarily "meant" to be good at, swimming being one of them.
Oh! I see! We need a drastic thing to happen to undergo a mutation,
Not necessarily. Mutations can be random, they can be cosmetic, they can be beneficial, or a harmful one. Kind of like Sickle-Cell Disease where the cells would be far less effective in absorbing oxygen, however if only one of the alleles of your two genes contained this trait then you'd have red blood cells but some sickle-shaped ones too.
If you was infected with, I believe it's malaria, they could not effect the sickle shaped ones, which as a result would still grant passage for not being entirely screwed.
As a result where malaria was a constant, people with Sickle-Cell Disease would still live on to reproduce in league with those otherwise completely healthy.
- H
I apologize for what I said about Reiko
Wouldn't most mutations have a positive effect? Because they happen, mostly, so that the life form can live better in its environment, and mutations are linked closely with evolution.
you guys go to fast for me so i just reply to what was writen to me. sorry if it's already discused or way off topic
I understand what you mean, but I must say this. Who has ever been happy because s/he won the lottery? Almost all of them became poor or died young.
not realy there are enoufg examples of lottery winners that used the money usefull and became very happy whit it.
now i think about it i only know those examples. i don't know 1 where the winners became poor and died young. (dieing young has nothing to do whit having money btw but w/e) i guess you wanted to say.. and became unhappy.
because becoming poor after winning a lottery is possible because you can spend money. you can't spend a mutation. you can't lose it forever.
as for winners becoming unhappy... well i guess it's just the personality. or something greater then money. like friends and family.
whit good mutations this can also happen because the mutated can become a outcast.
but when they find other outcasts (lottery winners) then that will become a new group (species). (evolution)
Wouldn't most mutations have a positive effect? Because they happen, mostly, so that the life form can live better in its environment, and mutations are linked closely with evolution.
Most mutations have a neutral effect. meaning they don't change how well adapted a species is one way or the other. For instance if you had a child, that child will on average have about 150 mutations in his genome. However it's unlikely any of them will significantly effect his ability to survive.
do you think if you put someone born at sea level up in the mountains, and they had a family, would their children or grandchildren not suffer from the air
no the lungs adebt to it.
if you have live at sea-level for 20 years and you move to a high place. then you will have proble the 1st few year but over time your lungs will train themself to get enoufg air out of the air. there is no physical mutation needed for that. just muscle strenght.
You must be logged in to post a reply!