Skip to comments.
Civilisation Has Left Its Mark On Our Genes
New Scientist ^
| 12-19-2005
| Bob Holmes
Posted on 12/19/2005 2:52:15 PM PST by blam
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
To: SkyDancer
"Why are there no transitional species"
There are, all of them are transitional species.
21
posted on
12/19/2005 4:40:21 PM PST
by
ndt
To: blam
Neat.
Disease resistance is something one would expect but the protein metabolism thingy is a bit counter-intuitive.
Maybe more meat as humans became better hunters as they got smarter?
To: From many - one.
"Maybe more meat as humans became better hunters as they got smarter?" Animal domestication.
23
posted on
12/19/2005 5:02:20 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
That's less than 10,000 I think, although adding in herding should make it longer.
I suspect two possible countervailing trends... first an increase in protein supply with more efficiency, then, when agriculture came in, a dimuition as grains replaced meat.
To: ndt
Well it's not doing a very good job, the vast majority of species are extinct.
What are you talking about when you say "it's not doing"? Evolution or intelligent design?
25
posted on
12/19/2005 5:10:20 PM PST
by
adorno
To: From many - one.; blam
To: adorno
"What are you talking about when you say "it's not doing"? Evolution or intelligent design?"
That would be ID.
If some designer were intelligently molding species to fit their changing niches, it (the designer) is a miserable failure since the vast majority of species that have ever lived are currently extinct.
On the other hand that is exactly what you would expect from evolution/natural selection. If a a species fails to adapt to a changing environment it goes extinct, which just leaves a hole that gets filled by the first species that can survive there.
27
posted on
12/19/2005 5:22:02 PM PST
by
ndt
To: Elpasser
"Because evolution doesn't happen in huge multi-gene mutational leaps."
But isn't that the definition of punctuated equilibrium?
To: ndt
If some designer were intelligently molding species to fit their changing niches, it (the designer) is a miserable failure since the vast majority of species that have ever lived are currently extinct.
Extinction might also be part of the design. In place of the extinct species, you will most likely find a better or improved species. Extinction and dying are all part of the design. Species improvement or redesign might all be part of the plan of an intelligent designer. At the same time, environment design (via the Designer) enters the picture where a species needs to establish itself and prosper.
On the other hand that is exactly what you would expect from evolution/natural selection. If a a species fails to adapt to a changing environment it goes extinct, which just leaves a hole that gets filled by the first species that can survive there.
Evolution/natural selection are terms used by scientists to try to explain observations. Those observations might be explained just as well by insertion of an Intelligent Designer. Intelligent design, which we humans may someday be capable of doing ourselves, could explain a whole lot better the natural selection and observations that scientists keep trying to explain away with "evolution".
Believe me, I have come full-circle in my beliefs. Brought up Catholic, became sciientifically minded from college on and even became an agnostic, some would even say atheist. Deep critical thinking, not faith, has made me re-think my "evolution" and anti-God beliefs. My mind is still evolving and so are my beliefs.
29
posted on
12/19/2005 6:38:17 PM PST
by
adorno
To: blam
30
posted on
12/19/2005 8:36:16 PM PST
by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America)
To: blam
31
posted on
12/19/2005 9:49:16 PM PST
by
SunkenCiv
("In silence, and at night, the Conscience feels that life should soar to nobler ends than Power.")
To: GOPPachyderm
To: From many - one.
Could you explain a litte further? Wouldn't there have to be new genetic information to explain the theory of punctuated equilibrium?
To: GOPPachyderm
Glad to try.
First, so I know where you're coming from, can you give me some idea of your understanding of "new genetic information"
To: blam
From the article above we get:
"This analysis suggested that around 1800 genes, or roughly 7% of the total in the human genome, have changed under the influence of natural selection within the past 50,000 years."From other scientists we get
ITHACA, N.Y. -- Nearly 99 percent alike in genetic makeup, chimpanzees and humans might be even more similar were it not for what researchers call "lifestyle" changes in the 6 million years that separate us from a common ancestor.
...Clark emphasizes that a study like this cannot prove that the biology of humans and chimps differ because of this or that particular gene. "But it generates many hypotheses that can be tested to yield insight into exactly why only 1 percent in DNA sequence difference makes us such different beasts," he says. link here: [http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec03/chimp.life.hrs.html],
Is it not amazing that modern man is genetically closer to chimpanzees than he is to man 50,000 years ago.
35
posted on
12/20/2005 1:07:16 PM PST
by
Lester Moore
(The headwaters of the islamic river of death and hate are in Saudi Arabia.)
To: ndt
to what?
What are you transitioning too :)
36
posted on
12/20/2005 2:51:36 PM PST
by
SkyDancer
("Talent Without Ambition Is Sad - Ambition Without Talent Is Worse")
To: verity
37
posted on
12/20/2005 2:52:41 PM PST
by
SkyDancer
("Talent Without Ambition Is Sad - Ambition Without Talent Is Worse")
To: RightWhale
So you believe then we're all related and somehow evolved from some molecules that happened to bump into each other .... this begs the question ... where did the original molecules come from and at what point did "whatever being" decide it's more fun to mate than split???
38
posted on
12/20/2005 2:55:10 PM PST
by
SkyDancer
("Talent Without Ambition Is Sad - Ambition Without Talent Is Worse")
To: SkyDancer
"What are you transitioning too :)"
I'm still working on the mixing genes part. We'll have to wait at least 9 month to answer that question.
But seriously, I was making the point assuming common decent to be true (which I take it you disagree with) then ALL fossils are transitional fossils. Every organism that has ever lived, barring an untimely death, is a midpoint between its ancestors and its descendants.
39
posted on
12/20/2005 3:03:20 PM PST
by
ndt
To: ndt
Great ... hope things turn out the way you want (ie gender)
Problem is with fossils is that there are too many gaps ... secondly a lot is based on uniformitism ... the layers of the earth being laid down uniformly. Such though is not the case - we find younger transitional forms in layers containing older fossils ... so we still really don't know ... then too, all the age names are wrong too - it's been found that forms belonging to one age were found in another - and that's not been corrected.
Have a great Holiday ...
jane
40
posted on
12/20/2005 3:09:29 PM PST
by
SkyDancer
("Talent Without Ambition Is Sad - Ambition Without Talent Is Worse")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson