Originally posted by JesusIsAliveOnly a small part of the DNA strand is expressed in sexual reproduction. When more is expressed, you may not have "new genetic material," but you do have the biological equivalent.
Mutations do not produce new, genetic information. All it does is rearrange existing information. A species population needs new, genetic information for macroevolution to occur. Otherwise, all you have is variation within a species, which is what is supposed to happen.
Re: How does evolution explain males and females?
I saw a science show on tv a while back that was dedicated to ^that very question. One of the professors interviewed theorized that the two sexes began to come about way back when, when one-celled organism were the only lifeforms. The first "males" (according to this hypothesis) were cells that engulfed, or otherwise 'injected' their DNA into other cells, thus encouraging genetic variation in future generations. Obviously this theory isn't too popular with the PC crowd, because it seems to imply that being male inherently means that one is predatory. But is one of the theories out there. Its not official, but its also not entirely discounted. Its a "maybe" theory.
Originally posted by Quark_666
JIA's still here? LOL!
He's like airplane food...you just can't keep him down.
I could imagine having organisms expert at one thing is of huge benefit to them. Take an bunch of small organisms some of them are great at passing on their genes to other organisms, some of them are excellent at using these passed on genes and create new organisms, and some of them are okay at either. In time mainly the ones best at their task pairing with the ones best at the complementary task will pass on their genes, which will lead to even better and more specialized organisms. For these organisms it will be a much larger cost to be both able to incredibly well pass on their genes and shittily be able to do something with genes passed to them so that they will eventually drop the ability they are bad at completely, creating two distinct types of organisms within the species who can only reproduce together. Over millions of years that will become more and more distinct and voila males and females.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I might be wrong but I thought the underlying principle of evolutionary theory maintains that organisms are constantly evolving into more complex, superior forms than their predecessors.
You are mistaken. Evolution does not state that organisms have to become more complex or generally superior. It only states that in time, the traits most beneficial to the organisms life and ability to reproduce within the environment that organism lives in have the best chance to stay and develop further. A most logical idea, if you think about it.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Mutations do not produce new, genetic information. All it does is rearrange existing information. A species population needs new, genetic information for macroevolution to occur. Otherwise, all you have is variation within a species, which is what is supposed to happen.
in fact, changes in offspring are often the result of the activation of previously dormant genetic material that represents past organisms, creating variance based on what was effective in the past for the environment organisms are facing today
Wikipedia is on average extremely accurate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia)(lol). And what's more, very in depth. Though I understand your worries, in JIA's case (i.e. feigning interest in actual knowledge on the subject, but refusal of even going the first step) it's just ridiculous. And if he didn't want wikipedia, he could have gone to the sources cited on Wikipedia.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You know, I have to agree with JIA when he says that he doesn't care or trust what Wikipedia says.
you have the requisite background in genetics for real research to be meaningful?
like, there are good intro books on the subject of epigenetics (what Darwin got wrong is the one I would recommend off the top of my head), but you can't really link those
further, rather than glib hand waving, why not find the parts of the well cited wiki page that you know are inaccurate, rather than just irrelevant generalizations?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Mutations do not produce new, genetic information. All it does is rearrange existing information. A species population needs new, genetic information for macroevolution to occur. Otherwise, all you have is variation within a species, which is what is supposed to happen.
ofcourse that just shows the extant of your ignorance doesnt it. the entirety of the computer use and programming languages are based on binary code, i.e. 0s and 1s. and combination thereoff. are you willing to say then that since the 1960s NO new information has been created in the worlds of computer or databases or the internet or computer languages?
its the same argument with dna. dna consists of a tertiary code, i.e. three basic units that CREATE information. and the infinite combinations of the three you can make as the chain length increases. (its similar to mathematics actually. theres only 10 numbers. 0-9. but their combinations are infinity and hence the set of natural numbers is infinite.
and please stop using terms like information species and macroevolution, i dont think im being elitist in saying that you havent a CLUE as to what the hell any of those things mean.
QM: sorry, I think that came off a bit more confrontational than I wanted. my point is more that, outside of Wikipedia, what would you trust?
I can't post an entire book or text book chapter (mostly unavailable online and too long to expect people to read) and other websites are arguably more likely to contain bias than is wiki (at least they have discussion and have changed their editing policy since that episode of the office).
we could both use pubmed to find abstracts, but scientific papers rarely are of the theme "I'm goin to explain a concept in simple, non-jargon". I don't have a degree in biology, so epigenetics papers that deal with the expression of gene c342 over progressive generations based on acces to various protiens ian going to mean much to me either, and even if it did, scientific papers are by design, of a much more narrow scope than you would want in an introduction to a topic.
so like, tell me, what kind of source you would prefer. outside of Wikipedia, where do you find something that:
- is written for non-specialists
- introduces and summarizes a topic
- is available for free online
- is short
- contains citations and at least some form of peer review
because if I knew of such a source, I would certainly use it
wikipedia, outside a wholistic understanding of peer reviewed literature, is probability wise, the overwhelmingly preferrable bet to get a basic understanding of concepts compared to nearly anything else out there.
having said that, if malicious posters or groups get involved in changing data then you could be led astray i.e. scientology, mormonism, islam, some political figures, come companies etc
i would usually ask someone making fun of wiki to produce their "superior" sources. plus i think wiki reading is awesome for laymen.
wikipedia is an accurate source of information on many varied topics
people who dismiss it are naive
when you read wikipedia check the sources for confirmation
yeah anyone can add to wikipedia, but anyone can write a book or a magazine or newspaper just the same
use your commone sense to separate bullshit from fact and truth
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Mutations do not produce new, genetic information. All it does is rearrange existing information. A species population needs new, genetic information for macroevolution to occur. Otherwise, all you have is variation within a species, which is what is supposed to happen.
Have you ever heard of anagrams? The world is full of examples of rearranging a set of things to produce something new. I can take the word "evangelists" (randomly selected) and produce the phrase "evils agents" without adding anything new into the mix. Or take a piece of clay and make a sculpture, now punch the clay, you have a new sculpture but no new clay.
Originally posted by GRIMNIR
yeah anyone can add to wikipedia, but anyone can write a book or a magazine or newspaper just the same
The difference is that the person who wrote the magazine or book is known so we can learn about their biases, while wikipedia editors (unless they're particularly fervent) are not.
Originally posted by GRIMNIR
use your commone sense to separate bullshit from fact and truth
That's a really bad method.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The difference is that the person who wrote the magazine or book is known so we can learn about their biases, while wikipedia editors (unless they're particularly fervent) are not.That's a really bad method.
I know right. Everyone and their mom can edit that shit. At least with old fashion book-encyclopedias I know 2 things: a) that it comes from a reputable source, and b) no one will break into my house, erase the pages and then write something that they made up. Wikipedia might be useful for fun trivia, like; where a certain actor was born or what year a certain album was released. But things like science and history? I think I'll pass.
There's a reason that no respectable academic institution will accept that site as a source.