I know. I was going along with it. 
Well itās hard to tell since people will believe the dumbest things.
I will stop attempting humor in the debate section. It really is my own fault I guess eh?
No, please keep the humor up. The vast majority of us got it. Iām paying Mr. Ran absolutely no attention. I believe you should do the same unless your administrative duties call for it (wink wink, nudge nudge, knowhatimean knowhatimean).
QFFT!
Baccon&eggs;
Have been thinking through this conversation and am realizing that I am not quite on keel here, concerning definitions. A creature getting larger, is a change from the current design, ( I cringe with the term) but it does not make it a different species. However, it is still a change.
So now we are looking at two things - definition of a benificial ārandomā mutation, and that of what we are willing to accept as being āEvoā. On the one hand, being bigger does have an impact on potential survivability - on the other, it really does not qualify as a species changeā¦ so again, we are needing to look at definition.
Just some thoughts.
enjoying this conversation folksā¦ Good input.
Eh? Then what did we evolve from?
He believes we were created as we are by god. He believes we didnāt evolve at all.
Our classification of different species is of no relevance in evolution.
Any mutation that persists is a step in evolution. If becoming larger is not a result of mutations, then it is not evolution, unless the greater chance of survival of the species overall causes certain genetic changes.
BTW, saying āevoā instead of just evolution kind of annoys me, just putting that out there.
According to evidence, the Australopithecus. Go back further and you can find what is believed to be the common ancestor of the chimpanzee and the human: Sahelanthropus.
Humans and apes are two different evolutionary branches, but we do share a common ancestor who was neither human nor ape.
:ninja:
I think I used to go to school with one of those.
fine fine! Iām getting out! Iām going![/SIZE]
Technically speaking, humans ARE apes. Humans are a member of the Great Apes along with chimpanzees and gorillas.
While adaptation has the connotations of a conscious process, itās still perfectly find to use that term for evolution.
Ummmmā¦ No relevance? To what is happening in nature, noā¦ in terms of our being able to grasp what is going on, yes.
As far as a mutation, define what a mutation actually is. What mutation that is something transerfable to offspring, and is replicatable, qualifies exactly?
Why this becomes important, is because in a chromosome match up, would one consider the blending of genetic information a mutation of the original? How far do we take this? As far as common decent, the evidence is there. In terms of defining āMutationā there seems to be confusion.
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that āevolutionā has a duality in mechanismā¦ evolution can happen without a mutation, as long as whatever the change is, is a survival advantage? But if it not a survival advantage, but merely a change, it is not evolution, unless it is a mutation that persists - does that mutation also have to be a survival advantage to count?
There is also devolution, and convergent evolution as well. Mimi-virus would be an example of devoltion to some degree, because surviving in a lessor state, has actually seemed to have helped the virus survive. (If I recall the artical correctly - I think it was Scientific America - Actually, some are thinking that we may have come from Mimi-virus. (or some such simular) The strain slpit, and one went forward as it were, and one digressed.
can you provide some kind of citation for this, it sounds like an interesting read.
Arrgh! Evolution is not a linear process. It is not a force directing a species towards some perfect form. Evolution is simply how creatures change. You are right, not every evolution or mutation results in a survival advantage. However if it is the chances of it being passed on are greatly increased.
As an example letās use a theoretical species of bird, that have no interesting characteristics and are completely grey. Letās say one day a bird develops a mutation which causes a streak of red plumage to grow along its wing. This is a change, a mutation, evolution. However it serves no actual purpose, and doesnāt help the bird survive any better than its brethren. Despite this, it still gets passed along the family line and eventually we end up with two kinds of bird, one that has a red streak and one that is fully grey.
These arenāt seperate species, they can still breed together. Iām not sure of the terminology but they are more akin to seperate breeds, just as dogs are.
But what happens if this red plumage was actually beneficial? Letās say that male birds with this red streak are seen as more desirable partners by females. Suddenly this bird has an advantage over its relatives, and gets far more oppurtunites to breed. As the birdās young will also have the red streak this effect is multiplied, and soon birds with full grey plumage will hardly get any chance to mate and pass on their characteristics. The result is that the original greys are bred out and the only birds that are left are the ones with red plumage.
All of this is evolution. The species has changed, not neccessarily for the better, but it has altered. Evolution is not about species surviving better due to mutations, but more about which mutations persist due to the environment.
A perfect analogy, bacon.
I always hate it when some anti-evolution nut argues that certain adaptations donāt help a creatureās survival, completely ignoring the fact that it isnāt detrimental either so it has an even chance of being passed on.
I hate most things that anti-evolutionists say (on the topic of evolution), since theyāre generally nonsensical, uniformed or arrogant (the things they say, not necessarily the people).
Hm, without the parenthesis, thatās a very angreh post.
This is the opening abstract from this site, concerning Mimivirus, and what it is. I will dig further for the mentioned article. The end of the abstract mentions the possible role of mimivirus in eukaryotes - it is an interesting idea, that this DNA strand is being looked at as a bridge for evolved cellsā¦
https://www.virologyj.com/content/2/1/62
āAbstract
The discovery and genome analysis of Acanthamoeba polyphaga Mimivirus, the largest known DNA virus, challenged much of the accepted dogma regarding viruses. Its particle size (>400 nm), genome length (1.2 million bp) and huge gene repertoire (911 protein coding genes) all contribute to blur the established boundaries between viruses and the smallest parasitic cellular organisms. Phylogenetic analyses also suggested that the Mimivirus lineage could have emerged prior to the individualization of cellular organisms from the three established domains, triggering a debate that can only be resolved by generating and analyzing more data. The next step is then to seek some evidence that Mimivirus is not the only representative of its kind and determine where to look for new Mimiviridae. An exhaustive similarity search of all Mimivirus predicted proteins against all publicly available sequences identified many of their closest homologues among the Sargasso Sea environmental sequences. Subsequent phylogenetic analyses suggested that unknown large viruses evolutionarily closer to Mimivirus than to any presently characterized species exist in abundance in the Sargasso Sea. Their isolation and genome sequencing could prove invaluable in understanding the origin and diversity of large DNA viruses, and shed some light on the role they eventually played in the emergence of eukaryotes.ā
PS. Baccon, ok, I see your take very clearly, and that is a wonderful explaination. I asked simply because there is confusion sometimes regarding what one person sees as a āmutationā, compared to someone else. It is mind bending the extremes you run into in both camps - I find sometimes asking for very concise explaination a very good way to see the other personās frame. Thanks for that. A person who is up on the terms, will say something, and the other person is not up on the terms, and makes assumptions. A person who is NOT up on their science will hear the word mution, and think of a sudden mysterious fish growing legs and being on the landā¦ failing ot realise the emense amount of time needed for some "Mutation(s)/change " to happen.
_____________________________________-
From Science News, it is a quick overveiw of Mimivirus without going in too deep.
https://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43277/title/Mimivirus_up_close
This is the article from Scientific America, December 2004, but does not seem to be the article that was discussing the evolution/devolution concept.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-viruses-alive-2004
I will think some more on it, and see if I can remember where the discusion came from. (Sorry - see what you have to look forward to when you get old?)
This article does talk about shared genes in both Bacteria and Humans - Which is interesting enough - the article is 4 pages long, and worth a careful read through. Mimivirus (Certain strains of it) can contain as many as 911 genes, with is really quite amazing really.