Originally posted by Wild ShadowIn comics, getting hit by a gamma bomb ain't so bad, either.
what so negative about being called a mutant? i mean it is a term used everyday in marvel comics and i never saw kitty freak out over it.... its not like your calling them a mutie.
😇
the conotation would be he is superpowered and shun by a jealous society.
Originally posted by MindshipThe original concept of the Hulk was a rip off of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Bruce Banner = Jekyll, Hulk = Hyde. It turned him into a being that he can't control and wreaks havoc on it's environment and people he loves, that's why he was scared of turning into the Hulk, that was the concept in the beginning the Hulk nowadays wants to be left alone though...
Kindly explain.
Originally posted by ParmaniacAh. I was just highlighting WS's relating comics to real life.
The original concept of the Hulk was a rip off of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Bruce Banner = Jekyll, Hulk = Hyde. It turned him into a being that he can't control and wreaks havoc on it's environment and people he loves, that's why he was scared of turning into the Hulk, that was the concept in the beginning the Hulk nowadays wants to be left alone though...
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
if a human is born with a missing or added chromosome shouldnt they be considered a new species, subspecies or a mutated variant, rather then grouped with the rest of humanity?
species is a very hard term to define, for the reason you point out. How much difference, and difference from what, is needed before 2 organisms are considered to be of different species?
Technically, no, the person with the mutation is still human, however, the more you deconstruct the idea of "species" the easier it becomes to argue that there are no such thing as species or that every organism could be its own species.
Originally posted by Mindship
Kindly explain.
Originally posted by Parmaniac
The original concept of the Hulk was a rip off of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Bruce Banner = Jekyll, Hulk = Hyde. It turned him into a being that he can't control and wreaks havoc on it's environment and people he loves, that's why he was scared of turning into the Hulk, that was the concept in the beginning the Hulk nowadays wants to be left alone though...
Yeah, that's what I was referring to. It was mostly a joke, really.
Originally posted by inimalist
species is a very hard term to define, for the reason you point out. How much difference, and difference from what, is needed before 2 organisms are considered to be of different species?Technically, no, the person with the mutation is still human, however, the more you deconstruct the idea of "species" the easier it becomes to argue that there are no such thing as species or that every organism could be its own species.
I thought "species" was rather easy to define:
sexual: members of a species can breed with eachother and produce fertile offspring (Black Lab and a Great Dane: they look very different and have many physiological differences, but they can make fertile babies that can in turn, make babies...weird looking ones, probably.)
asexual: Everything goes to shit here. It would require a lengthy, complex, definition. weep
Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought "species" was rather easy to define:sexual: members of a species can breed with eachother and produce fertile offspring (Black Lab and a Great Dane: they look very different and have many physiological differences, but they can make fertile babies that can in turn, make babies...weird looking ones, probably.)
asexual: Everything goes to shit here. It would require a lengthy, complex, definition. weep
there are working and coloquial definitions, sure, but none of them stand up to even modest deconstruction (For your particular example, it falls apart at the level of birds depending on the environment, I'm sure I've talked about arctic birds before, right?). Especially in terms of speciation, as in, what is a new species.
For instance, in the span of pre-human to human, there was never a point where a mother gave birth to a child with whom it shared so little dna that they couldn't produce offspring.
Which is, I suppose, a better point anyways. The whole concept of "species" is not an individual level phenomenon. For a mutation to constitute a new species it would need to be within a population larger than a single "mutant" individual. Of course, the term mutant being totally useless, as we are all "mutants" in this way.
Originally posted by inimalist
there are working and coloquial definitions, sure, but none of them stand up to even modest deconstruction (For your particular example, it falls apart at the level of birds depending on the environment, I'm sure I've talked about arctic birds before, right?). Especially in terms of speciation, as in, what is a new species.For instance, in the span of pre-human to human, there was never a point where a mother gave birth to a child with whom it shared so little dna that they couldn't produce offspring.
I don't get it. I'm seriously lost as to WTF you're talking about.
In your example, it would be 1 male and 1 female of the same species producing offspring. That offspring can then, in turn, reproduce with any other of the animals in their species.
For example, horse and a donkey make a mule. The mule cannot reproduce. They are closely enough related that offspring can occur, but distantly enough related that it can't produce fertile offspring.
That's how it works.
And, I have no idea what arctic birds have to do with this.
If you run across two arctic birds that look different, have slightly different physiology, but they can mate and produce offspring that can in turn produce offspring from "either" side of the "different" looking parents, the two parents are just part of two different sub-species...but still the same species.
The dilemma comes in if two previously thought distinct species can reproduce. That's easy to remedy: same species, but each are sub-species (just a quick mod to the binomial nomenclature...lulz). This should hold true, even in the case of a natural vast geographic separation.
Originally posted by inimalist
Which is, I suppose, a better point anyways. The whole concept of "species" is not an individual level phenomenon. For a mutation to constitute a new species it would need to be within a population larger than a single "mutant" individual. Of course, the term mutant being totally useless, as we are all "mutants" in this way.
From my understanding, the species problem is almost wholly philosophical (for sexual organisms). Taxonomists seem to do just fine. They can get by with the "sub-species" excuse.
I never understood the need for a debate over sexual species: didn't understand the need for it as a kid, as a high-school student, nor as a college student.
Originally posted by leonheartmmFalse.
false. it can be added on. mutants can be either. often theyr bad but not always.
Basic genetics.
Look up: Genotype and Phenotype.
Mutants are either that way because of teratogens or because of genetic defects.
Not because anything has been added to the genetic code.
Originally posted by One Free Man
False.Basic genetics.
Look up: Genotype and Phenotype.
Mutants are either that way because of teratogens or because of genetic defects.
Not because anything has been added to the genetic code.
I already told you about viruses, but you just ignored it. I think you don't want to hear the true.
Originally posted by Shakyamunisonplease tell me again or post a link to where you told me before. I apologize for ignoring you, you are still on my ignore list so that I can only read your uneducated trolling when I feel like it.
I already told you about viruses, but you just ignored it. I think you don't want to hear the true.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonIncorrect. Slightly different virus=different phenotype, not genotype.
It all depends on what you call a mutant. Not all mutations lead to disaster. Some lead to mundane things like red hair.Also, your statement that "genetic data has never been added on" makes no sense, and is not true. Viruses change (add on) genetic data all the time. That is how we get new viruses every year.
Defenition:
Phenotype: the genetic charactaristics that come forth in something.
Genotype: the genetic charactaristics available for the phenotype to chose from.
If you are talking about the reaction to medication that causes virus's to become immune to the medication, we are talking about a mutation that is made widespread by SOF.
Most medications are like poisons to certain germs, and they work by attaching themselves to the germ and killing it. Germs that are killed by the medication die, but ones that aren't, live. Evolution? Guess again. The germs that survive are the ones that have a mutation that renders them unable to digest the medication. This leaves them weaker, but less susceptible to the medication. They are damaged, not "added onto"
And germs "evolve" and "cross breed" into germs of the same kind. But they never exceed their genotype.
Originally posted by One Free Man
Incorrect. Slightly different virus=different phenotype, not genotype.Defenition:
Phenotype: the genetic charactaristics that come forth in something.
Genotype: the genetic charactaristics available for the phenotype to chose from.If you are talking about the reaction to medication that causes virus's to become immune to the medication, we are talking about a mutation that is made widespread by SOF.
Most medications are like poisons to certain germs, and they work by attaching themselves to the germ and killing it. Germs that are killed by the medication die, but ones that aren't, live. Evolution? Guess again. The germs that survive are the ones that have a mutation that renders them unable to digest the medication. This leaves them weaker, but less susceptible to the medication. They are damaged, not "added onto"
And germs "evolve" and "cross breed" into germs of the same kind. But they never exceed their genotype.
lmao. u do know im an undergrad in evolutionary bio right??? 😆
genetupe means the physical composition of dna and phenotype means the alleales that actually show in the physical structure of the organism in question resulting from uni dominance or partial dominance of the alleale.
addition mutation can rather easily add to the genetic makeup of the species, as can the mutation of a stop codon.
not all germs "cross breed" infact sexual reproduction in bacteria is a very rare occurance on the whole.
and quite honestly i dont understand what you mean by "exceed their phenotype". do u mean exceed their number of chromosomes{the old ridiculous arguments of so called "macro" evolution?}? if thats the case then ur wrong again, they can.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
lmao. u do know im an undergrad in evolutionary bio right??? 😆genetupe means the physical composition of dna and phenotype means the alleales that actually show in the physical structure of the organism in question resulting from uni dominance or partial dominance of the alleale.
addition mutation can rather easily add to the genetic makeup of the species, as can the mutation of a stop codon.
No, create new information, not new chromosomes.
not all germs "cross breed" infact sexual reproduction in bacteria is a very rare occurance on the whole.and quite honestly i dont understand what you mean by "exceed their phenotype". do u mean exceed their number of chromosomes{the old ridiculous arguments of so called "macro" evolution?}? if thats the case then ur wrong again, they can.
Originally posted by One Free Man
That's what I said, in layman's terms.I disagree. mutations can be made to splice or slightly alter certain genetic make-up, but they can't add new information.
No, create new information, not new chromosomes.
no u didnt.
it doesnt matter if you disagree, addition mutation is a well documented phenomenon.
again, ur using christian propaganda for information, "addition mutation is a well documented fact" as well as mutation which changes the base cobination in stop codons. both of these lead to addition of new genetic material{and there are other ways too}.
The Genetics of Down Syndrome
When a woman conceives, both mother and father typically contribute 23 chromosomes each, adding up to 46 total chromosomes. In Down syndrome, a child inherits an extra chromosome, with a total of 47 chromosomes. The extra chromosome occurs in chromosome 21. This is usually caused by something known as nondisjunction. When a number 21 chromosome does not separate during the egg or sperm cell formation, it is called a nondisjunction. When this malformed egg or sperm meets a normal egg or sperm and an embryo is formed, there will be 3 number 21 chromosomes. When this happens, Down syndrome is the result. Having an extra chromosome means that more protein than normal is present in the genes. This possibly contributes to the symptoms caused by certain genes on the 21st. chromosome.
Carriers of Down syndrome can sometimes be the result of something caused Robertsonian translocation. This is when the arm of the number 21 chromosome breaks off and joins another chromosome at the center. The baby will not have Down syndrome symptoms, but may have a child with the disorder as a result of this occurrence.
As we see with a look at human genetics, Down syndrome spontaneously occurs without any known cause. The result of trisomy 21 is a variety of differences, symptoms, and challenges, but people with Down syndrome are more like others than not, and this is what we should remember when working with these children as teachers.
Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/education/special/articles/65442.aspx#ixzz0hU6bD9CY