Premarital Sex

[fairy_dreams]

<p>Dude, just let them talk.</p>

<p>It’s not hurting anyone and most people are just ignoring this thread. People have misconceptions and their own theories and it’s interesting to see what they believe in.</p>

[applicannot]

<p>

You two aren’t 5-year-old kids. This has got to stop sooner or later.

</p>

<p>Well, running around in a circle is great exercise for five year olds. I learn a lot about dealing with people who have no idea what they’re talking about when I get into these debates. I also occasionally do research, which in my opinion, is always beneficial.</p>

[Tents]

<p>As it was posted earlier on this thread, some people have the right to believe in the wrong things. But at least’s he’s learning something. :D</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

I think what you mean is that there would be a creature with an incomplete feather covering system. Or, that there would be animals with imperfect wings or arms. We do have fossils for those animals. That’s not, however, always going to be the case. You don’t have to see gravity to know it’s there. No matter how much evidence we amass for gravity, there are always going to be missing pieces. Despite the body of evidence we have for natural selection, it’s never going to be perfect. But to say we don’t have substantial evidence for natural selection is to be uninformed.

</p>

<p>And to say I say we don’t have evidence for natural selection is to completly miss the point of everything I’ve said so far, unless you have a different definition of natural selection than wikipedia, merriamwebster, answers.com, etc.</p>

<p>

“Half” things aren’t going to exist very often, and certainly not for very long. Take bacteria for example. Put a lot of bacteria in a petri dish and expose the bacteria to an antibiotic. Some of them will be antiobiotic-resistant and will live. Then, the next population of bacteria will all be or will mostly be antibiotic-resistant. You don’t have bacteria that are “half” resistant to antiobiotics.

</p>

<p>That is an exellent example of my theory in action. Before you put the antibiotic into the dish, the population contained both resistant and non resistant traits. After you changed the enviroment, the non-resistant ones were eliminated by natural selection, leaving only the resistant ones. So did the system get more or less complex?</p>

[Tents]

<p>Hi applicannot, I remember you from the military debate. How you’ve been? :D</p>

[fairy_dreams]

<p>This has been said before, but new alleles can be created. </p>

<p>

Scientists have shown that beneficial mutations do occur to produce brand new alleles (variants of genes) that improve an organism’s chances of survival in a particular environment. Natural selection has been demonstrated to increase the frequency of these alleles in a population.

</p>

<p>Taken from: [Examples</a> of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection](<a href=“http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html]Examples”>http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html)</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Huh? I don’t know who on this thread believes this, but it is debunked immediately within any biology class and with any study of natural selection. This, I believe, is not natural selection but Lamarck’s idea. I disagree slightly with the traits part, because that does play into natural selection, but otherwise you are very confused if you think I am arguing for Lamarck.

</p>

<p>Ok, so what IS your definition of “evolution”? If it’s the gradual part you object to, take it out. if it’s the “changes into a different form” part you dislike, then you believe evolution even less than I do. If it’s “emergence of new traits” then you have the exact same view as me.</p>

[applicannot]

<p>

So did the system get more or less complex?

</p>

<p>I haven’t looked up the science to this, but in my somewhat-educated opinion, it would become more complex. Those bacteria now had a new tool in their arsenal.</p>

<p>

Ok, so what IS your definition of “evolution”? If it’s the gradual part you object to, take it out. if it’s the “changes into a different form” part you dislike, then you believe evolution even less than I do. If it’s “emergence of new traits” then you have the exact same view as me.

</p>

<p>Neither. I object with the concept of “something.” No single organism “changes into a different form.” A bug might accidentally be born with red eyes instead of green eyes, but that one small change doesn’t equate to something entirely new. Only after many changes would “variation within a species” become a completely new species. Lamarck proposed that individuals changed; Darwin and subsequent alterations to the theory of natural selection propose that populations change. I have no qualm with the “emergence of new traits,” in fact, I said that before. What I mean is, I do think the “emergence of new traits” is a perfectly reasonable part of natural selection, as explained better by fairy_dreams.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>@fairy_dreams: That’s an interesting read, and I’ll have to take a closer look at it sometime. But it doesn’t really answer my question. I would guess (and it is in fact stated for some of the experiments) that the “mutations” do not add new functionality to the creature in most cases. One example that I have studied in a little more detail is the “superbugs” that are found in hospitals. In that case, a freak mutation handicapped the cell’s ability to take in nutrients through it’s cell membrane. This had the useful byproduct of preventing the antibiotic from entering at a rate fast enough to kill the cell. But it is once again a case of complexity being lost, not gained.</p>

[ElemenoPQ]

<p>Hold up. Okay, evolution as I understand it is descent with modification. All present day species evolved from an ancestral species. Meaning, species now they originally diverged from a common ancestral species due to different change in different populations of that species that led natural selection depending on what factors were affecting which population. The populations likely have diverged and became something slightly new. As time went by, gradual changes led to a change in each population, and the changes made the populations so different that they would be considered different species because they can no longer make viable offspring if individuals from those different populations were to get together.</p>

<p>The evidence we have for this is like homologous structures and stuff. Again, I know you guys might hate me for this but I’m speaking very generally. However, I have time to get into it more if you’d like me to.</p>

[ElemenoPQ]

<p>Okay the point of me posting that earlier, I haven’t been following this thread recently so I don’t understand what you guys are claiming. But I see something about organisms getting more complex. Not necessarily true, at least they’re becoming different from the ancestral species in some way. Maybe they are more complex now because they need the more complex adaptations to survive better nowadays than their ancestors did. Not saying this is always true, but at least this can explain why the organisms seem more complex now?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

I haven’t looked up the science to this, but in my somewhat-educated opinion, it would become more complex. Those bacteria now had a new tool in their arsenal.

</p>

<p>Well, for the record, I have looked up the science:</p>

<p>Before: Population contains both individuals posessing the trait of resistance to antibiotics, and individuals not possesing it.</p>

<p>After: Individuals lacking said trait die, leaving only the ones with resistance.</p>

<p>There is no new tool in their arsenal. The old tool has simply been isolated and made common by natural selection.</p>

<p>

Neither. I object with the concept of “something.” No single organism “changes into a different form.” A bug might accidentally be born with red eyes instead of green eyes, but that one small change doesn’t equate to something entirely new. Only after many changes would “variation within a species” become a completely new species. Lamarck proposed that individuals changed; Darwin and subsequent alterations to the theory of natural selection propose that populations change. I have no qualm with the “emergence of new traits,” in fact, I said that before. What I mean is, I do think the “emergence of new traits” is a perfectly reasonable part of natural selection, as explained better by fairy_dreams.

</p>

<p>The idea that individuals do not change, but the population does, is exactly my theory. Basic genetics and the theory of natural selection tells us that a population will tend to have it’s ratios of different alleles change over time. You seem to think that entirely new alleles are introduced, at a rate fast enough to turn reptiles into birds and proto-rats into humans within about 60 million years. The only way new alleles can enter the gene pool is if individuals change.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>BTW, re Carbon Dating:</p>

<p>According to wikipedia, Carbon Dating is only accutate up to about 50-60,000 supposed years. That’s to recent to be of much use in evolutionary research. just making sure you know what your side says on that issue.</p>

[applicannot]

<p>

Well, for the record, I have looked up the science:</p>

<p>Before: Population contains both individuals posessing the trait of resistance to antibiotics, and individuals not possesing it.</p>

<p>After: Individuals lacking said trait die, leaving only the ones with resistance.

</p>

<p>That doesn’t make a species more or less complex; it just makes a species more or less varied. Variety =/= complexity. There is remarkably little variety in the function of the human body, all around the world. Does that mean we are not complex organisms? Maybe complexity just isn’t the concept you are looking for.</p>

<p>

You seem to think that entirely new alleles are introduced, at a rate fast enough to turn reptiles into birds and proto-rats into humans within about 60 million years. The only way new alleles can enter the gene pool is if individuals change.

</p>

<p>No, alleles can be a) changed drastically and b) changed in some ways, as outlined by fairy_dream’s link. So yes, an individual “changes” in that it is not identical to its parent. In that sense, the individual has “changed.”</p>

<p>

According to wikipedia, Carbon Dating is only accutate up to about 50-60,000 supposed years. That’s to recent to be of much use in evolutionary research. just making sure you know what your side says on that issue.

</p>

<p>That’s precisely why I said:
“Yes, among many other tools.”</p>

[fairy_dreams]

<p>Carbon dating is just one of many ways of dating fossils. Potassium is better for the older samples (it has a half life of more than 1 billion years). It’s a pain to calculate the Potassium half life problems in AP Chem though.</p>

[Putturani]

<p>How the hell did this thread go from premarital sex to carbon dating? :S only on CC</p>

[misterpop92]

<p>im more curious as to how it got to 40 pages.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

That doesn’t make a species more or less complex; it just makes a species more or less varied. Variety =/= complexity. There is remarkably little variety in the function of the human body, all around the world. Does that mean we are not complex organisms? Maybe complexity just isn’t the concept you are looking for.

</p>

<p>Variability is a better word, you are right. The point is, this is not a case of a population developing new traits, but rather a case of existing traits being shuffled and naturally selected.</p>

<p>

No, alleles can be a) changed drastically and b) changed in some ways, as outlined by fairy_dream’s link. So yes, an individual “changes” in that it is not identical to its parent. In that sense, the individual has “changed.”

</p>

<p>Like I said, that link didn’t specify all the exact changes that occured, and until APs are over I won’t have time to look into it in detail. But from my first readover it seems that in at least most of those experiments the variation was a result of a) existing traits being naturally selected, or b) a mutation causeing information to be lost, not gained. There is a big difference between a mutation that causes a protien to be absent, and one that causes a new protien to come into existence. There is also a big difference between changing an antigen due to a copy error in existing DNA, and creating an entirely new structure (like, say, a eukaryotic cell from a prokayrotic cell).</p>

[SLightManifesto]

<p>40 pages in 3 days? Jesus Christ!</p>

<p>Don’t mean to derail this conversation, but marriage-life is much better/stronger when couples don’t co-habituate/have sex prior to marriage. Plus, the whole “sex thing” has gotten taken way out of proportion. Sex is not just any old act. It’s the greatest expression of love where 2 become 1 and are willing to give each other all they have. It’s not really something you can afford to waste on the wrong people.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ I agree with that. Also, a home where the parents are in that kind of committed relationship is a much more secure place for kids to grow up in.</p>