|
Post by cagnazzo on Nov 15, 2009 1:25:07 GMT -5
Very good information, Vene. My biology class is covering DNA replication now. The professor also explained how mutations can occur in an easy, understandable manner. This is the example she gave, and each letter in the following sentence represents a nucleotide: The cat ate the rat If deletion occurs (say we delete the 'e' in the first 'the'), then something like this will occur: Thc ata tet her at The deletion of one nucleotide screwed up everything else. It'll cause a different sequence of amino acids. Also, sorry if I sound like a moron. I'm just excited to learn that and understand it a bit. ^_^ I find this stuff awesome. So does Vene. If you go back and read some of the old science threads, you'll notice that we love questions. So. Um. I'm very glad you enjoy it. Feel free to ask all sorts of questions here, because we love talking about it. It's awesome to learn about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Nov 15, 2009 1:39:40 GMT -5
As for taking one for the team, is that those individuals that have less advantageous or disadvantageous genes not reproducing or reproducing much less? More the unfortunate individuals who end up with disadvantageous traits, as they need to be killed off before passing those traits on. But again, because an advantageous trait can only spread throughout a population over the course of generations, the individuals don't really win at all. You're confusing me. I was trying to find some point I could ask for clarification on, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say here well enough to do even that. Also, it's not that they need to be killed off, it's that they are.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Nov 16, 2009 0:49:58 GMT -5
I have recently thought that evolution is a "whatever works" sort of process: the genes that do well at propagating themselves are the genes that we see. It seems almost trivial, akin to stating that what works sticks around and what doesn't kicks the bucket.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Nov 16, 2009 15:47:22 GMT -5
That's true, but also worth emphasizing that what's good at one point in time, might not be good at another, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Turquoise on Nov 17, 2009 16:27:46 GMT -5
Vene: I'll admit that my familiarity with that particular school of thought is limited, although the link you provided has been very enlightening. Mechanistically, I think it's clear that evolution is very complex, even if the overall principle is wonderfully simple. But I trained as a biochemist, and so I've only ever thought of genetics in terms of all the wonderful proteins that the largely uninteresting nucleotide sequences give us (yes, I know there's more to it, but compared to proteins, nucleic acids are so boring). I suppose, though, that if we were to continue using the 'game' metaphor, the gene-centered view would hold that the game is played solely for the benefit of the ball. Is that accurate or am I misunderstanding? You're confusing me. I was trying to find some point I could ask for clarification on, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say here well enough to do even that. I was talking in terms of the 'game' metaphor. If evolution is a game, it's not one that individuals ever win. Also, it's not that they need to be killed off, it's that they are. You are correct, of course. Again, I was only talking in terms of the 'game' metaphor, and was using the term 'need' in the sense that for the team to win the game, some individuals must (need to) be sacrificed. Anyway, forget the game analogy, as it's clearly creating some confusion (and I'm apparently making it worse...). Just read Vene's OP. Mr. Turquoise
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 17, 2009 18:31:15 GMT -5
Vene: I'll admit that my familiarity with that particular school of thought is limited, although the link you provided has been very enlightening. Mechanistically, I think it's clear that evolution is very complex, even if the overall principle is wonderfully simple. But I trained as a biochemist, and so I've only ever thought of genetics in terms of all the wonderful proteins that the largely uninteresting nucleotide sequences give us (yes, I know there's more to it, but compared to proteins, nucleic acids are so boring). Aw, but I like genetics, of course, I did the whole biotechnology thing, so I don't care quite as much about the pure chemistry as I do the overall effect. Even if protein pathways are fun. Maybe more along the lines of each gene represents a player in the team (a trait) and where everybody wants the highest stats for themselves. Not as much team harmony as nobody wants to sacrifice his/her career for the team, but overall go for success. Of course, this puts the team at the organism level, so maybe the conference is the equivalent of the species. I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Jan 6, 2010 22:51:18 GMT -5
“Note: Just to let you it is not that we don’t believe in things like that, it is just misleading when you talk about it being billions of years old, when we all know that the world is only about 6,000 years old. So why would I pay so that you can misslead my children, your world is just a revolving(?), ours has a start and an end. God created the world. He created animals and man all in the same week. It was also Adam who named all the animals, they will do the essay ‘Rock and Minerals’ but it might not be 5 pages long, and about billions of years, it will be according to the Bible.”
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Jan 7, 2010 1:26:46 GMT -5
“Note: Just to let you it is not that we don’t believe in things like that, it is just misleading when you talk about it being billions of years old, when we all know that the world is only about 6,000 years old. So why would I pay so that you can misslead my children, your world is just a revolving(?), ours has a start and an end. God created the world. He created animals and man all in the same week. It was also Adam who named all the animals, they will do the essay ‘Rock and Minerals’ but it might not be 5 pages long, and about billions of years, it will be according to the Bible.” My high school AP biology teacher started by saying we'd cover evolution, and he had a student one year write "I don't believe in this" on the exam. He said that he proceeded to give them zero points because "I'm not testing you on what you believe, I'm testing you on what I taught." Which makes sense. Also, if you're studying biology, or taking the advanced course, you'd think you want to know what, you know, biologists think on the matter, right? I didn't take AP literature so I could call Shakespeare a hack. And if I took some bible studies class, I'd want to learn about the bible. Anyway, I'm hungry. There was a point to this post, I just can't find it.
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Jan 7, 2010 2:24:00 GMT -5
“Note: Just to let you it is not that we don’t believe in things like that, it is just misleading when you talk about it being billions of years old, when we all know that the world is only about 6,000 years old. So why would I pay so that you can misslead my children, your world is just a revolving(?), ours has a start and an end. God created the world. He created animals and man all in the same week. It was also Adam who named all the animals, they will do the essay ‘Rock and Minerals’ but it might not be 5 pages long, and about billions of years, it will be according to the Bible.” My high school AP biology teacher started by saying we'd cover evolution, and he had a student one year write "I don't believe in this" on the exam. He said that he proceeded to give them zero points because "I'm not testing you on what you believe, I'm testing you on what I taught." Which makes sense. Also, if you're studying biology, or taking the advanced course, you'd think you want to know what, you know, biologists think on the matter, right? I didn't take AP literature so I could call Shakespeare a hack. And if I took some bible studies class, I'd want to learn about the bible. Anyway, I'm hungry. There was a point to this post, I just can't find it. I don't know that this course would have been an elective at grade 7.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Jan 7, 2010 18:54:19 GMT -5
My high school AP biology teacher started by saying we'd cover evolution, and he had a student one year write "I don't believe in this" on the exam. He said that he proceeded to give them zero points because "I'm not testing you on what you believe, I'm testing you on what I taught." Which makes sense. Also, if you're studying biology, or taking the advanced course, you'd think you want to know what, you know, biologists think on the matter, right? I didn't take AP literature so I could call Shakespeare a hack. And if I took some bible studies class, I'd want to learn about the bible. Anyway, I'm hungry. There was a point to this post, I just can't find it. I don't know that this course would have been an elective at grade 7. Oh, I wasn't really commenting on that specifically. Just on the general stupidity of the mindset "let's learn bible in bio class."
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jan 7, 2010 19:13:37 GMT -5
I kind of like how defensive the note sounds.
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Jan 18, 2010 1:44:30 GMT -5
So is even 8000 years too long?
|
|
|
Post by johninoz on Jan 20, 2010 21:01:19 GMT -5
I have recently thought that evolution is a "whatever works" sort of process: the genes that do well at propagating themselves are the genes that we see. It seems almost trivial, akin to stating that what works sticks around and what doesn't kicks the bucket. You raise an important point, and one that Fundamentalists always get wrong. Fundies turn your point into the claim that 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology. Many things are 'things that work' for a species to survive. Good luck, good weather, good food supply, good genes. The things that work, work, and that is indeed a tautology. The unique thing about good genes is that offspring inherit them, changing the nature of the species itself. Unlike good luck, which plays no favourites.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jan 20, 2010 22:18:26 GMT -5
Unlike good luck, which plays no favourites. Sure it does. It always favours the house.
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Jan 30, 2010 12:32:21 GMT -5
“Note: Just to let you it is not that we don’t believe in things like that, it is just misleading when you talk about it being billions of years old, when we all know that the world is only about 6,000 years old. So why would I pay so that you can misslead my children, your world is just a revolving(?), ours has a start and an end. God created the world. He created animals and man all in the same week. It was also Adam who named all the animals, they will do the essay ‘Rock and Minerals’ but it might not be 5 pages long, and about billions of years, it will be according to the Bible.”
|
|