Whats gonna happen to Bush today/tomorrow???

Originally posted by Lavan
Why are you done? Because you have no evidence to support that Global Warming is fake? Of course, no argument so just call me a tree-hugger and be off.

As for Evolution - all data collected in human history support the predicitons of darwinian evolution. In science there is NO DEBATE about whether evolution has occured. The evolution is as close to a fact as possible in science. I would go into more detail, outlining darwin\'s four postulates and the volumes of evidence supporting them, but you wouldn\'t pay attention anyway. It\'s not what you want to hear so you just ignore it.

If gravity\'s a theory, please by all means, jump off a cliff.

I\'m done too, if people honestly think that radiation causes beneficial growth (some nice green plants LOL) and that the burning of fossil fuels has no bearing on the global climate then I fear for the human race.

I agree Lavan.

PS. Yes, the human race is indeed a stupid one. We wreck so much, but rarely does anyone care as long as they have their fast cars, microwave owens, cell phones, comfortable houses etc. If you have all that then why care about the rain forest, pollution, the extinction (sp) of animals etc. As long as we\'re living the life everything\'s good... :rolleyes:

I wouldn\'t be surprised if mankind will destroy itself before long. One can only hope evolution will speed up a lot and make us much smarter helluva fast.

Originally posted by EThugg
Lavan and others touched on pretty much everything, although I know evolution is a theory, it\'s a tested, and observable theory. Cut yourself. When you heal, that\'s also evolution. When you die and decompose, that\'s evolution. Cancer.... evolution. With those, and the fact that fossils indicate a bigger, species wide evolutions, it\'s a pretty safe, realitivly proven theory. I\'m not saying your 100% wrong, but global warming is likely real, and there\'s nothing wrong with caring about the environment.... being a \'tree hugger\' if you want.... and to pretend that a localized volcanic eruption, which affects a localized area for a short time, is as bad as constant pollutents spewed out of of factories and cars, is just irresponsible.  Volcanic ash bad, well duh! Does that excuse us adding to it? Nope.


I hope I made sense, I kinda rant when I talk about the environment and animal rights....

King tree hugger,
EThugg

Good points as well.

Ok, again I\'m not going to argue with most of what you said Lavan since you clearly know more than I about this.. however there are two points which are unproven, and I think you\'re leaning a little too much upon.

Firstly.. Eveloution IS a theory. We know it happens.. there\'s fossil records to prove it. But we don\'t know HOW or WHY it happens. The common belief is natural selection as stated by Darwin. But Darwin\'s theory is FILLED with holes and gaps because at the time he formulated it, he didn\'t know jack about chromesomes, cellular biology, or mutation. When I hear people talk about "Natural Selection", it reminds me of trying to fit a jigsaw puzzle piece.. which is slightly the wrong the size.. fit. We know it\'s wrong, and yet there\'s just no better solution to the problem.. so we just leave it at that.

Tell me.. how in the hell did diverse life on this planet spread? I mean, if say a pack of hyena\'s were to forced from the serengetti into the more arid eviroments of Egypt or even the middle east. You\'re going to tell me that their survial solely depends on a handful of possibly BILLIONS of genetic changes being the exact ones needed to help them survive.. and then finding a mate with the same genetic changes, or at least genetic changes similar enough for the mutation to not be diluted in the offspring. And THEN.. there\'s the issue of the survival of the offspring, weither or not they will avoid preditors and be able to mate. It\'s just mind boggling to think that millions upon millions of species on this earth, and their ancestors..(Billions upon Billions of them) evolved this way.

Science is not always right. Just 60 years ago, science would have told us that celular life could not exist in tempratures exceeding 150 digrees feinheight(sp?).. and yet now we know that certain species of microbes THRIVE in the boiling sulfur pools in Yellowstone National Park.

Natural Selection as a theory, swallowed whole, is wrong. Period. So unless we know WHAT eveloution is.. and HOW it occurs.. how can you definitavely say what effects it and what dosen\'t?

BTW: AFAIK, Ethugg, the Theory of gravity (much like the theory of Eveloution) is just that.. a theory. We know it occurs, but what causes it is a still a mystery. The most popular belief is that the greater the mass of an object, the greater the bending of space time around it. (Think of a bowling ball sitting on a floor made of Nurf) The curve of space around the earth, causes sattelites and other objects to follow that curve.. right into the earth unless their speed is just right to maintain their orbit. (Like a ball-berring riding the edge of a shallow bowl.)

No matter how widely accepted.. it\'s still a theory.

Och, SonyFan - look up the Natural Synthesis - the modern analysis of Darwin\'s Postulates of Natural Selection. I have the worst hang-over in history, if you really want the answers to the questions you posed about Evolution in your thread I can answer them  (for the sake of general knowledge) - but only if you\'re interested in the answers.

Let me know.

Cheers,
Lavan [who has calmed down from yesterday]

Get over your hangover, and then post them. I\'ve gotta hit the sack anyhow since I\'ve got to be at work in, oh.. 6 hours, and I haven\'t been to bed yet tonight. (Family visiting)

I\'ll be back \'round 11 or 1 am to read and respond.

Originally posted by SonyFan
Ok, again I\'m not going to argue with most of what you said Lavan since you clearly know more than I about this.. however there are two points which are unproven, and I think you\'re leaning a little too much upon.

Firstly.. Eveloution IS a theory. We know it happens.. there\'s fossil records to prove it. But we don\'t know HOW or WHY it happens. The common belief is natural selection as stated by Darwin. But Darwin\'s theory is FILLED with holes and gaps because at the time he formulated it, he didn\'t know jack about chromesomes, cellular biology, or mutation. When I hear people talk about "Natural Selection", it reminds me of trying to fit a jigsaw puzzle piece.. which is slightly the wrong the size.. fit. We know it\'s wrong, and yet there\'s just no better solution to the problem.. so we just leave it at that.

Tell me.. how in the hell did diverse life on this planet spread? I mean, if say a pack of hyena\'s were to forced from the serengetti into the more arid eviroments of Egypt or even the middle east. You\'re going to tell me that their survial solely depends on a handful of possibly BILLIONS of genetic changes being the exact ones needed to help them survive.. and then finding a mate with the same genetic changes, or at least genetic changes similar enough for the mutation to not be diluted in the offspring. And THEN.. there\'s the issue of the survival of the offspring, weither or not they will avoid preditors and be able to mate. It\'s just mind boggling to think that millions upon millions of species on this earth, and their ancestors..(Billions upon Billions of them) evolved this way.

Science is not always right. Just 60 years ago, science would have told us that celular life could not exist in tempratures exceeding 150 digrees feinheight(sp?).. and yet now we know that certain species of microbes THRIVE in the boiling sulfur pools in Yellowstone National Park.

Natural Selection as a theory, swallowed whole, is wrong. Period. So unless we know WHAT eveloution is.. and HOW it occurs.. how can you definitavely say what effects it and what dosen\'t?

BTW: AFAIK, Ethugg, the Theory of gravity (much like the theory of Eveloution) is just that.. a theory. We know it occurs, but what causes it is a still a mystery. The most popular belief is that the greater the mass of an object, the greater the bending of space time around it. (Think of a bowling ball sitting on a floor made of Nurf) The curve of space around the earth, causes sattelites and other objects to follow that curve.. right into the earth unless their speed is just right to maintain their orbit. (Like a ball-berring riding the edge of a shallow bowl.)

No matter how widely accepted.. it\'s still a theory.

I\'m quite aware of the fact they\'re theories. Unfortunately for you and Altered, they are the accepted theories, and neither of you have better ones.

Yeah, Ethugg.. but that dosen\'t make them any more right or wrong does it? Copernicean(sp) theory was widely accepted at one time.. and stepping into the "Way-back" machine, if we we\'re to have this discussion a few millenia ago.. You\'d basically be saying that the sun revolves around the earth. Today we know that\'s wrong.. VERY wrong.

Also Lavan, I had a bit of extra time before 8 so I went ahead and looked up a few pages about it. You don\'t have to respond right away, but just add something in to the post when you decide to write it. From what I gather, Natural Synthesis is a rather new view on Darwin\'s theory of eveloution that\'s got some problems of it\'s own. Most pointedly, where spontanious eveloution fits in. (The creation of a whole new species from "out of thin air". These might just be significant gaps in the fossil record.. but until there\'s quite a bit more through palentoligical(sp) work done.. we can\'t be sure if that\'s an accurate theory.

I never said they were factual, I admitted they were theories. Everything is.

[This is a long-ass post, so if you just want the answer to your question, just scroll down to the bottom few paragraphs]

Okie dokie, I can\'t get back to sleep and I\'m waiting for the game to start on TV (Roma vs Parma - if Roma win they win the Italian Championship), so I\'ll briefly go over Darwin\'s 4 postulates, evidence supporting his theory of evolution by natural selection. And then the Modern Synthesis which is the integration of the understanding of genetics with Darwin\'s 4 postulates.

Charlie\'s 4 Postulates:

i)Individuals within populations are variable.
ii)Variations are heritable.
iii)Many more offspring are produced than can survive;
we know this through
a)Deduction - for example a single aphid has a reproductive potential of 524 billion offspring in one year (imagine the child support!), but obviously they don\'t have that many kids or we\'d be swamped in aphids!
b)Observation - ie competition, predation, parasitism, catastrophic events, and habitat/food limitation.
ivSurvival and reproduction are not random. Individuals with favourable traits will produce more offspring in their lifetime than individuals with less favourable traits.

Some pretty obvious sh!t, but back then no-one had thought of this.

Okay, evidence for this. I will summarise without going into too much detail:

1)Evolution under Domestication: Domesticated animals change through artificial selection, and you have many varieties produced from a single ancestor. For example, the Australian game fowl was breeded originally from the Belgian Quail Bantam. The Australian game fowl is a completely different SPECIES (bloody nasty looking chicken), and yet it didn\'t just appear, it was bred by human breeders. Same for most domesticated plants such as Ornamental Kale.

Shows that:
* Species not immutable
* Different types of descendants from one ancestor are possible

2) Fossil record - new species appear continuously through time and you see species change through time.
a)Law of succesion - fossil species in a given area are succeded by similar living species ie. Armadillo and the glyptodont
b)Extinctions
c)Transitional forms - this is one area most opponents of evolution forget to mention, they say that the fossil record just shows new species from no-where, but they fail to mention transitional forms which show intermediate characteristics between living taxa.

3) Biogeography - If all the organisms descended from common ancestors, then the species myst have spread across the earth by dispersing from original habitiats - therfore, the current distribution of organisms must depend upon capacity for dispersal and barriers to dispersal, and this has been shown;

eg. Oceanic Islands - fewer species than continents, defficient in species that are poor dispersers, and  a high concentration of endemic species.

eg. In archipelagos the species are different on each island, more similar to nearest neighbours than to more distant neighbours - adaptive radiation.

4)Similarity of Characteristics;
a)Anatomical characteristics - similar structures, in similar positions, but with different functions in different organisms. eg. Vertebrate forelimbs.
b)Vesitgal structures - eg. human appendix - useless for us, but is neccesary for orangutans.
c)Embryological Characteristics - closely related taxa all have similar embryonic stages, even though their adult forms are all different - eg. Human, turtles and chickens.
d)Genetic Characteristics - large sections of DNA are similar in species classified together, and this is true even for functionless DNA. eg. Humans and bonobos (pigmy chimpanzees) share more than 80% of the same DNA sequences.

Okay, now the modern synthesis, which has two parts;

i)Gradual evolution results from small genetic mutations acted upon by natural selection.
ii)The origin of SPECIES (Macroevolution) can be explained in terms of natural selection acting within populations (Microevolution).

Okay, game\'s starting so I\'ll just sum up the modern synthesis and answer your question. Ah, screw it Juventus scored (if Juve win their match, and Roma lose to Parma, Juve win the championship), okay I\'ll just answer your question;

Okay, so a bunch of hyenas get seperated from the pack and move from the serengetti  to Egypt. Okay, so the two populations are now isolated from each other physically, but if we put them back together they could mate at this time.

Okay, so in the rogue pack a mutation occurs in two hyenas that, say (for the sake of incredibly simplifying things), lets them go without water for longer than the others. Those two are at an advantage, and let\'s say they are both males (doesn\'t matter if they were females, doesn\'t mater if it was JUST ONE hyena). Okay so that hyena now posses an allele (a gene) that we\'ll call the WATER gene. Since this new water gene is expressed, it is obviously a dominant gene (simply mendelian genetics here). So when this Hyena mates he will pass on the water gene to his offspring, and it will be expressed because it is dominant and there is no complementing locus - you said that the gene would be \'diluted\' - genetics doesn\'t work that way, blending inheritance doesn\'t exist. For example, if someone has a gene for Cystic Fibrosis, it doesn\'t get diluted for each ancestor the person has. The great, great, great, great, grandson of someone who has CF STILL has at least one CF allele.

Okay, so now the offspring of the two hyenas will have the water gene. Now, not only will those two be able to pass on that gene to THEIR offspring - they are at an advantage over the rest of the pack (since they can go longer without water) and will therefore die at a later age and produce MORE offspring, and their offspring will do the same. Eventually, the water gene will become FIXED in this new population, because anyone with it will outcompete those without it.

Now that\'s just ONE allele, and organisms have HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of alleles, and all can be acted upon at the very same time, and don\'t forget this has been going on FOR MILLIONS, even BILLIONS of years.

WhOOO Hoooo! Roma just scored, okay I\'m off to watch the game, if you want more examples, or want to shoot holes in what I wrote go ahead - I got plenty more to say! The body of evidence supporting evolution is astounding, and as I have said there is no debate in the scientific community whether or not evolution has occured - it is fact.

Just to expand on that, now let\'s say that in the original serrengeti herd/pack, there is nothing to eat but TOUGH Zebra meat (this is purely hypothetical here, but I\'m just illustrating principles). Now a mutation occurs in one femaile that makes her incisors longer, and this helps her tear up the meat easier, quicker and she can therefore eat more than anyone else. AGAIN - this trait gives her an advantage, it\'s a dominant allele, and it will be passed on, and eventually the allele will get fixed in the population.

This is how evolution works, so lets say at the same time there is tough Zebra meat, it\'s also very cold, so over the course of time there comes a mutation that gives a more furry coat. That allele will be fixed in the population because it confers an advantage. Now lets say there\'s a predator of the hypenas that catches the hyena by grabbing it\'s tail. And then comes a mutation that gives the hyena no tail, and that get fixed. So after 1000-2000 years, what once was a single pack of hyenas you have ones in Egypt that are similar to the original but can go without water for a long time, and you have those that have larger teeth, furry coats, and no tails - in other words, you have TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES! And they can\'t interbreed anymore.

Now about mutation. I think now Altered will say that since MUTATION causes this, that UV radiation will result in evolution and lots of speciation. HOWEVER, it\'s not simply mutation that causes evolution. For example, say in the Serengetti pack, there was a mutation that gave LONGER tails - obviously the holder of this particular mutation would NOT be at an advantage because the hypothetic predator I mentioned would be able to catch it much easier. This animal therefore DIE quicker, and have LESS offspring - and the same for any offspring it manages to have. Therefore, the short tail gene would OUTCOMPETE  the long tail one, until the long tail gene became extinct.

THEREFORE - it\'s mutation, WITH selection that results in evolution. UV radiation results in a mutation rate that is more than a million times higher than normal mutation - so for every beneficial mutation you\'re highly likely to have just as many negative ones, NOT TO MENTION - that UV (along with other forms of short wavelength radiation) cause damage to the DNA itself and DNA repair mechanisms resulting in the inability for DNA to replicate itself, or just as bad, the opposite - uncontrolled growth, ie. Cancer.

Okay, so now you say, how can I PROVE the hyena example.

That\'s where the three examples I gave (Fossil Record, Biogeography and Similarity of Characeristics) come in handy.

So we look at the fossils in the Serengetti and we see a hyena similar to the furry, no tailed, big teethed one today, but this one has big teeth, BUT A NORMAL TAIL! And it\'s in the same area. This is a transitional form.

How do we know that the two hyena packs divulged from a common ancestor? We examine the fossil records along possible paths the packs could take when travelling, and we do a DNA sequence analysis between the two and we\'ll find that they have much more similar DNA than either species and it\'s other neighbours in the vicinity.

And, as I said, those are just a measly THREE traits, usually we\'d be looking at hundreds, not to mention specific loci in their genomes that would PROVE the ties between them.


Okay, now the scientifc minds among you will say, okay Lavan, that\'s all fair and good, but can you prove this with an experiment.

Well sure - obviously we can\'t do this with a hyena because we don\'t have a few thousand years to spare to do an experiement, but we can use something that goes millions of generations in just a few years - bacteria. And there have been numerous experiments that have proven that evolution does occur due to natural selection (though, obviously, in the experiment it\'s artificial selection). If you want me to outline a few of those I can too.

Not to mention there have been numerous practical experiments to explain inherited behaviour such as the wing waving pattern of tephritid flies.

Gratuituous bump, for those who may be interested.

OK I don\'t care about all this enviro-stuff, but I don\'t believe in Evolution.

Ok, but you still didn\'t answer the most important part of the question. The one that ties it all together. What actually makes these the useful genetic changes (out of billions of different variation that can occur) happen at just the right time they\'re needed. Now the thesis paper I read stated that certain enviromental and behavioral stresses trigger the changes.

Say for example, the hyena herd was running into less and less water as they traveled North West. Over time the extended periods between water would trigger a change in the genetic structure of the cells to help adapt the animal to it\'s new climate. From there, Natural selection takes effect on the female hyena and her offspring. So in actuallity, it wouldn\'t just be the one female these genetic changes are made in.. it\'s most of the pack at the same time.

But either way.. that dosen\'t explain why some new species seem to appear spontaniously. It could be a mix of Natural Synthesis, and something else we don\'t fully understand. Or just another factet of Natural Synthesis we don\'t understand. Or it could be that Natural Synthesis is wrong completely, but it happens to fit the facts so it seems right, at least now given what we currently know.

And yet, where do protines fit in? From what I\'ve read in Newsweek about the Human Genome project, Gene\'s aren\'t the be-all end-all of what we are, or what we can become. They\'re just potential. What really determines the effect of those genes are the protines around it. So in your example.. the CF gene is passed on though generations. How strong it is in the offspring depends on the series of protine around the gene. So for instance me and a stranger (male) both have the CF gene. He suffers under the effects of Cystic Fibrosis, while I don\'t develop any symptoms at all. Only the females in my family develop the condition. A third stranger, could develop a mild case of CF late in his fiftys. Use the same example but replace CF with Calicium deficency, whereas I have to intake massive amounts of calcium to get the same benefits as a stranger who only has to intake a fraction as much.

So here\'s another question.. if genes are only the very basic blueprints of how we develop, then how does protine strings effect Natural Synthesis. Obviously they have to be there, and in the optimal configuration, for the genetic changes in the "hyena" to be truely effective enough for it to even have the edge over the rest of the her brood?

(BTW: Could you try to put your answer in more laymans terms? Like how you put the word genes in parenthesis next to Allels. It\'s kinda obvious I don\'t know all the technical terms you do since I\'m just trying to recall from memory what I\'ve read in magazines and seen on EduTV. Or at least explain what the terms mean.)

Also, Ethugg. If you admit they are theories.. and that theories are basically nothing more than educated guesses.. then you\'ve basically agreed with us. You\'ve just gone in one big circle with that part of your argument. What was the point?

On a side note: This is why I don\'t really trust "modern" science. It\'s often said that for every question answered in science.. 10 new ones replace it. The answers to those 10 new questions often raise awareness and shed new light on parts of the original question that we didn\'t quite understand before.. or gives us a whole new perception of the first question altogether. Meanwhile.. there\'s still the new questions raised by the answering of the 10 questions the first question brough about.

The scientific community has been turned on it\'s head so many times in the last hundred years, that it\'s foolish and arrogant to think that what we know today is in fact correct. Scientists a hundred years from now will undoubtably laugh at us in the same manner in which we laugh at the simplicity of the Phernologists and Physicists of the late 18th century.

Not to say that the persuit of science is bad or futile.. but I just don\'t like the arrogance and pride with which many scientists carry themselves. And I also think it\'s very unwise, as a species, to move science ahead as fast as we have without at least really attempting to fully understand what we discover. Toxic waste and "Greenhouse" gasses given off by fossil fuels are just two of the new problems we have to face thanks to moving ahead full steam with new discoverys with only half the understanding we need.

A good example is the peanut. Most people just pass it off as a simple food product which can yeild 10, at most, beneficial products. George Washington Carver, though careful study, found over a hundred different uses for them. Hell, for all we know the cure for cancer could lay in the crabgrass or weeds we callously pull from our gardens every weekend.

Originally posted by SonyFan
Ok, but you still didn\'t answer the most important part of the question. The one that ties it all together. What actually makes these the useful genetic changes (out of billions of different variation that can occur) happen at just the right time they\'re needed. Now the thesis paper I read stated that certain enviromental and behavioral stresses trigger the changes.

But that\'s the thing, these changes DON\'T always happen at just the right time - the changes are random and by chance are selected. That\'s why you have numerous extinctions over the course of time, as well as bursts of speciation. There is no order behind these genetic changes - they are random. You have to understand that evolution occurs in populations, and not individuals. If you take a bunch of hyenas and drop them in a desert, only if one or more of THOSE ORIGINAL hyenas ALREADY has a gene that allows it to go without water for long periods of time, will it be selected. Natural selection and genetic mutation cannot predict the future - they can only respond to the present. And there are tons of mutations within individuals in a population, but they only result in evolution if they are selected against. For example, it\'s entirely plausible that you could be able to go without food for, let\'s say, a day further than me. I have a peptic ulcer, my father had one, and so does my uncle - it\'s highly likely that my ulcer is the result of genetics. However, in today\'s society my ulcer, and your hypothetical ability to go without food for a long time confer no advantage, nor disadvantage. HOWEVER, if we were transported back several hundred thousand years ago to being a nomadic hunter gatherer species - YOU would be at an advantage over me, and you would produce more offspring, and your genes would excel in the population\'s gene pool beyond mine. And again, to re-itterate - your body did not sense that you would have to go without food for a long time, and therefore changed your genes so that you could go for food longer than me - your genes were fixed, and if they gave an advantage (which they did) they would be passed on. While mine, out of chance and environmental factors, were useless and were less likely to be passed on. Gene\'s don\'t predict the future, natural selection acts upon EXISTING genes.

I hope that clears up, the feeling of \'spontaniety\' you had about these mutations and their selection for, or against.

What I also failed to mention, and to extend upon my last point - is variation  WITHIN populations - ie, not everyone in a population is the same - just go back to one of darwin\'s initial postulates - \'individuals within a population are variable\' and \'these variations are heritable\'. So let\'s say, in species of chimps, a storm comes across the habitiat and takes down all the TALL trees. This is a random, catastrophic event. The result of this, is that the taller monkeys in the population have no advantage over the shorter ones when it comes to food - in fact, because they are larger they require more food and are at a disadvantage. Consequently, in the few years that it takes the trees to grow back, it will be all the SHORT monkeys that will do most of the mating, and pass on the SHORT gene. An example of this was shown over a 20 year period with finches in the galapagos islands, whose populations changed in beak size distribution over time.

So you see, mutation is just one of the many other factors that can cause selection of one particular variation - there are many others, such as genetic bottlenecks, and the founder effect, but it would take forever to list them all.

Originally posted by SonyFan
But either way.. that dosen\'t explain why some new species seem to appear spontaniously.

I hope I cleared up the spontaneously thing - they don\'t appear spontaneously, there are EXISTING mutations or VARIATIONS (which, obviously have their bearings in genes), that are selected upon.

Originally posted by SonyFan
And yet, where do protines fit in? From what I\'ve read in Newsweek about the Human Genome project, Gene\'s aren\'t the be-all end-all of what we are, or what we can become. They\'re just potential. What really determines the effect of those genes are the protines around it. So in your example.. the CF gene is passed on though generations. How strong it is in the offspring depends on the series of protine around the gene. So for instance me and a stranger (male) both have the CF gene. He suffers under the effects of Cystic Fibrosis, while I don\'t develop any symptoms at all. Only the females in my family develop the condition. A third stranger, could develop a mild case of CF late in his fiftys. Use the same example but replace CF with Calicium deficency, whereas I have to intake massive amounts of calcium to get the same benefits as a stranger who only has to intake a fraction as much.

Again, this is what I reiterrated - you have the calcium defficiency, but it ISN\'T SELECTED AGAINST - since you take the calcium suppliments - the variation already existed, but it only results in evolution if it becomes a factor to your survival that you can\'t control. If you were a caveman, it\'s likely that you would die before you had kids and therefore the gene would not be passed on  - so like you said, genes aren\'t the be all and end all - they are potential. If you were a caveman the genes would result in your premature death, but you\'re in the 21st century so they have no bearing on you living or dying, or in how successful you find a mate.

As for proteins - I don\'t understand what you\'re trying to say, sorry. All functional genes encode proteins - the genes are the blueprints, the proteins are the wood and steel you use to build the house - that\'s the simplest analogy.

Originally posted by SonyFan
So here\'s another question.. if genes are only the very basic blueprints of how we develop, then how does protine strings effect Natural Synthesis. Obviously they have to be there, and in the optimal configuration, for the genetic changes in the "hyena" to be truely effective enough for it to even have the edge over the rest of the her brood?

Again, the exact configuration of the proteins (to make enzymes and such) are DETERMINED by genes. I don\'t want to have to go into cellular biology, and describe transcription and translation, and codons etc. But I\'ll try to sum it up. DNA is all your genetic info. The DNA is made up of 4 bases - Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, and Guanine. A pairs with T, C pairs with G. So when you do a DNA sequence analysis it comes out like this

ACGACGTTTA
TGCTGCAAAT

What\'s a gene, a gene is a segment of DNA that encodes a protein. Again, keeping it simple, cellular machinery comes along the DNA, finds the gene (via a promoter sequence) and then translates the DNA\'s As, Ts, Cs & Gs into amino acids and then proteins - and that\'s the answer to your question, the DNA itself determines the protein composition, structure etc. - it\'s all rudimentry cellular biology. I can give you more detail if you want.

So you see, when we say that the hyena has the WATER GENE - that means she has a gene, that encodes a protein or set of proteins that allow the body (or can act as a hormone, or whatever - the possibilities 0are endless) to go without water for a long period of time. She could have had this gene in her family for decades, but it will only become profuse within the population and result in evolution IF a drought comes along, or the pack moves to the desert, and there are low water conditions.

Originally posted by SonyFan
The scientific community has been turned on it\'s head so many times in the last hundred years, that it\'s foolish and arrogant to think that what we know today is in fact correct. Scientists a hundred years from now will undoubtably laugh at us in the same manner in which we laugh at the simplicity of the Phernologists and Physicists of the late 18th century.

Not to say that the persuit of science is bad or futile.. but I just don\'t like the arrogance and pride with which many scientists carry themselves. And I also think it\'s very unwise, as a species, to move science ahead as fast as we have without at least really attempting to fully understand what we discover. Toxic waste and "Greenhouse" gasses given off by fossil fuels are just two of the new problems we have to face thanks to moving ahead full steam with new discoverys with only half the understanding we need.

But if the scientists are arrogant, what does that make the politicians and multi national corporations (that really, make all the decisions)? These politicians only believe the science they want to, and ignore the rest. The body of evidence surrounding evolution and global climate change is astounding, volumes upon volumes of studies and experiments. Yes, scientists make mistakes, but if this many scientists were wrong about evolution or global warming, then really there is something wrong with our fundamentals of science - which is something I refuse to believe since I am talking to you over the internet, using my computer, typing on my keyboard made of synthetic plastic, drinking a cup of coffee with nutrasweet, and will later take some robaxacet for my sore back.

I love this discussion by the way, this is amazing. If you want more clarification, or any ironing out of ideas let me know.

Originally posted by SonyFan
Toxic waste and "Greenhouse" gasses given off by fossil fuels are just two of the new problems we have to face thanks to moving ahead full steam with new discoverys with only half the understanding we need.

This I agree with wholeheartedly, however, it\'s very very clear that fossil fuel emissions ARE causing global warming. There is clear, CAUSE and EFFECT. It is also very clear, that these changes are irreversible in the scope of human time - we\'re taking billions of years of environmental evolution being unravelled in mere decades.

All I say is that we curb our emmisions - reduce the emissions, nothing too drastic, but at least acknowledge the cause and effect does indeed EXIST, and then we can move onto a solution. However, finding a solution doesn\'t come cheap, and if the major corporate and politcal leaders of the world won\'t acknowledge this process is even occuring then a solution cannot be pursued with the vigor it requires.