Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 813
view profile
History
Evolution. Page 33 of 64    (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)

Occasionally there is an article about a "liger", or a cross between a lion and a tiger. Would that be considered a new specie, or would that be considered as evolutionary,


No. And no.

Here, read and learn: (Yes, it's Wiki, but it's also a pretty good treatment of the term and the surrounding subject and history.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 814
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/30/2010 3:51:19 PM
James Carvelle and Mary Matalin getting married will not advance evolution as well. Cross breed a conservative and liberal and you get a lie-gur as well.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 815
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/30/2010 8:32:48 PM
A first generation hybrid is not a species. A continuous reproducing lineage with hybrid ancestors can be considered a species. When a hybrid crosses back with the parental species, no change of species status is normally recognized. Over the long haul, introgression of traits from hybrids can result in a historical change, such that the original ["pure"] species and its introgressed descendants are different species. Of course, hybridization isn't required for such temporal change - it's just an accelerant.

Species are biological entities - they are cohesive groups of organisms which freely reproduce among themselves [occasional hybrids do not constitute "freely reproducing"].

Many species of Aspidoscelis, Cnemidophorus, Kentropyx, and Darevskia [lizards] are exclusively female and parthenogenic. They can also all be identified as originating from two other living relatives. It's likely that the original hybridization has caused a genetic mismatch which causes eggs to develop without fertilization. Even though the original animals are just hybrids, they continue to reproduce, they are identifiable separately from both ancestor species, and they typically occupy intermediate habitats. Thus, they are distinct biological entities [species].

Hyla versicolor [a treefrog] has four sets of chromosomes rather than the two sets of its closest relative. The chromosome sets however, have three different origins, equating to three unknown extinct species. Two such species hybridized, and their hybrids or hybrid descendants crossed with a third species. Somewhere along the way, the genetic mismatch prevented the chromosome sets from dividing properly, resulting in double the DNA. The animals which live now consequently have twice as many copies of genes to "play with", leaving lots of room for future evolution.

There are many ways to recognize species [called species concepts], but every species forms a more or less cohesive reproductive group, regardless of the origins of that group. It takes multiple generations [NUG] for a hybrid to lead to a recognizable reproductive group. Parthenogenic hybrids are an obvious exception, since every generation is more or less identical to the very first hybrid. Pointless to recognize a species though, if it fails to continue reproducing.

Man-made species are recognized in botany. Thousands of new species and genera of orchids have been created, and they are typically recognized with the very first generation produced.

Thus far, man-made animal species are not recognized. I suspect that will change, given the growing number of oddball hybrids being produced and bred true, mainly among snakes. Ligers and tigons are not recognized as species for this reason, and also because they are very few in number, have no naturally reproducing populations, and what I have been aware of have been only first-generation hybrids. It probably wouldn't be all that hard to find a cat which shows evidence of arising from a cross of two other species, or at least has a few genes from another species. The fishing cats of Asia would be a good place to look for such.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 816
Evolution.
Posted: 11/30/2010 8:41:42 PM

Just out of curiousity. Occasionally there is an article about a "liger", or a cross between a lion and a tiger. Would that be considered a new specie, or would that be considered as evolutionary


No and no. It would be considered a hybrid animal.

Understand that speciation doesn't happen with the birth of a single individual but occurs over many, many generations and usually after some sort of separation, particularly (but not restricted to) geographical. The animals are influenced by their environment to survive in that environment. The fact that lions and tigers can interbreed only means they were separated from a common ancestor in geologically recent times. Conversely, you likely wouldn't see a successful interbreeding between a lion and a manx cat.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 817
Evolution.
Posted: 12/1/2010 10:10:39 AM

Man insists on playing the manipulator of natural selection, not for adaptation in a sustainability sense, but for $$.


Man also does the same with human breeding when a military draft/conscription is enacted during times of war.

Those drafted are given physicals & the healthy ones are allowed ( forced) to go into the military & are often killed.

Those that fail the physical due to various underlying health issues aren't drafted & stay behind to breed & pass on their unhealthy genes.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 818
Evolution.
Posted: 12/1/2010 7:50:26 PM
REALLY????? You are really corilating military drafts to selective breeding of humans


Not an intentional selective breeding program, merely an unavoidable consequence/side effect of the health criteria used by the draft boards.

With an increase in the number of men with undesireable ( at least in terms of what the draft boards desire) genetic traits available as breeding stock, coupled wih a decrease in the number of men without the undesireable traits the outcome would be an increase in the passing on of these undesireable traits.

Of course, this would only last during the hostilities and not all ( probably not even most) of those drafted would be killed in battle.

Plus the soldiers in foreign lands could breed with women in those lands & pas on their traits there & perhaps even be beneficial for the human race by spreading the gene pool around & bringing in fresh blood.

It's all just thought games, not to be taken too seriously.



Of course, if you were really paranoid & believed in conspiracy theories, it could be the military industrial complex is in league with the big drug companies... so the various wars COULD be merely a way for the arms companies to make money & for the pharmaceutical companies to ensure a continuing market for their wares....
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 819
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/1/2010 8:54:37 PM
One significant fact is being missed with regard to soldiers: many of them are married or have girlfriends already, and many do a damn good job of knocking them up before shipping out! Also, as far as I can tell, most soldiers come home, possibly barring being on the losing side on their home turf. Canada, for instance, has lost about 150 soldiers in Afghanistan over the last several years, and I'm sure we have sent a few more than that over ;) Nowadays, women are also included among those soldiers - living AND dead. I think it's also a generalized trait of young human males that they are risk-takers. Sending them to war takes advantage not only of their evolutionary "strengths", but also of their propensity for risk-taking. There's a certain similarity between soldiers and old Ekk The Spear-chucker, who was stomped by a mammoth: while they lived, they were well able to gain mates and produce and support offspring.

Regarding the fertility of ligers [lower case "L" - it's not a proper noun] - I don't know. Many hybrids are actually fertile, some poorly so and some not at all. Some mules are fertile, but it's rare. I suspect that ligers are fertile, as their parents are a bit more closely related than asses and horses. I'd have to google it. Thanks for the great compliment - I really appreciate it :)
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 820
Evolution.
Posted: 12/1/2010 9:18:03 PM
Yeah but I was talking about times of mandatory service, IE drafting.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 821
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/1/2010 9:50:32 PM
Which has questionable impact on their reproduction, since mandatory service is usually for adult males. If they are suitable as soldiers, they stand a good chance of being suitable as mates. With fears of impending death, there is probably an increased liklihood of leaving some genes at home - in the form of pregnancy or children already born. Military service doesn't prevent reproduction - it prevents FURTHER reproduction, and when one or two children is the norm, that doesn't mean much. Then consider the term "baby boomer" - those would be people born shortly after surviving soldiers returned home following WW2. War sparks breeding - before AND after military service, and either way the soldiers are breeding.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 822
Evolution.
Posted: 12/2/2010 4:05:05 AM
Let's not forget, "selective breeding" isn't necessarily going to mean speciation.

Still, there may be some good news for us humans. An interesting thing I read recently about; a meta-analytic study on over 250 surveys world-wide on what people find most attractive in a mate, the most important criterion turned out to be, ...wealth? No, ...beauty? No.

Kindness...
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 823
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/2/2010 8:53:43 AM

many injured soldiers came home and bred some more .... injuries don't effect the genes that are passed on.

While that statement may have been true in the past, many of the worst injuries are not seen and their effects poorly understood or acknowledged. In Vietnam we had the Agent Orange legacy coming home with Veterans along with the attendent birth defects. Gulf War Syndrome injuries, and Depleted Uranium exposure are proving to be even more horrendous in DNA damage than AO was.
Scroll down...not for the squeamish.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 824
Evolution.
Posted: 12/2/2010 9:54:27 AM
how do we actually define .... the fittest [ as in survival of ... ]


While avoiding tautology and equivocation?

= The better a species is adapted to, or "fits" a particular environmental niche (the fittest), the more likely it will persist ({as in} survival of).
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 825
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/2/2010 11:46:12 AM
RE Msg: 1740 by susan_cd:
Man also does the same with human breeding when a military draft/conscription is enacted during times of war.

Those drafted are given physicals & the healthy ones are allowed ( forced) to go into the military & are often killed.

Those that fail the physical due to various underlying health issues aren't drafted & stay behind to breed & pass on their unhealthy genes.
It's been a problem in Russia. So many healthy men were killed off in battle, that a lot of the men who are around have a lot of problems, both sociological as well as physical. It's part of the reason that even professional women in Russia are looking for men abroad.

In other species, not all males are given the opportunity to reproduce, only the healthy ones, who often end up with more females than a 1-to-1 relationship, and the unhealthy ones end up with none.

Similar things happen with rich versus poor. So maybe the important qualities for the evolution of humans, is what qualities make one able to gather more money to support one's females and young.

But that goes counter to human moral notions of equality, and giving everyone a fair shake, including the poor.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 826
Evolution.
Posted: 12/2/2010 1:23:17 PM
Similar things happen with rich versus poor. So maybe the important qualities for the evolution of humans, is what qualities make one able to gather more money to support one's females and young.

But that goes counter to human moral notions of equality, and giving everyone a fair shake, including the poor.


It also goes counter to the notion of sustainability when mankind gets the notion of endless abundance and that the world is here to serve him

IMO the most important qualities for a positive evolution of mankind is self awareness and self control.
Failing that, elimination of mankind would be a positive for the remainder

and just to be PC we would have to take the girls with us as well
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 827
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/4/2010 10:58:46 AM

Ah .... the agent orange in Viet Nam .... and Russia losing all those dudes.....
small potatoes to the population of the earth and the existance of humanity and if we will evolve or devolve.

The tens to hundreds of millions exposed to the DNA altering influences of just DU and AO, are merely the tip of the iceburg of DNA altering chemical assaults on humans and other creatures. There are a minimum of 80,000 man-made chemicals in common use today with only an extremely small number...a few hundred, that have been tested for their toxicity on life, much less combinations of them. Endocrine disruptors are pervasive now with serious implications for the future of reproduction on the planet. The addition of new Genetically Modifed organisms will quite probably compound this threat.
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/Pn31/pn31p6.htm
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2002/2002-08-13-06.html
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 828
Evolution: Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Posted: 12/4/2010 12:13:50 PM

I don't quite understand why "bell bottoms" aren't considered attractive any more


Maybe they aren't, but if the woman wearing them is sexy looking, I'd still wanna get into her genes...
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 829
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/6/2010 12:43:34 AM
The chemical industry is also the pharmaceutical industry. They have a pill for what they caused. Cancer is poised to become the number one killer on the planet. We are the testing lab, the lab rats. They current system is such that a newly introduced chemical compound is innocent until proven guilty like thalidomide, DDT, AO, Heptachlor and Chordane, etc. By then, the damage is done. I knew a kid from wholesome parents from the Amish country of PA who got leukemia. There house here had been saturated with Chlordane prior to their buying it, and the backyard was a flood prone area next to a toxic waste dump in a stinky part of town. Could have been coincidence, but for the cluster of such cases.

The main reason that (newer number) 95,000 corporate chemicals have not been tested, is profit and liability. Given the multiple pathways and opportunties for exposure, the more untested products out there, the less likely the criminal will be caught and prosecuted. When you own the politicians, you write the rules. The unchecked corporate power here is matched by the corruption abroad where increasing amouts of our toxic consumer goods and foods now come from.

We are writing the new rules on evolution now with our chemical signatures. There's not a pill to fix it all.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 830
Evolution.
Posted: 12/12/2010 5:15:42 AM

Thanks, but I was curious about how much information was contained on the respective strands.


Paul, your question is reminiscent of questions I've seen from others who question "where did the 'information' in DNA come from?" Often, the inference is that it could not have arisen "spontaneously" and is therefore a sign of a "designer."

However, here is an article from Wikipedia (with references, of course) and some of the information you're looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA.
Here's another: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/info.shtml

Now, not being a geneticist or even a biologist, I have only my own "science enthusiast" understanding to go on. But it is my understanding that the DNA that makes up us actually is a fairly cobbled together molecule. However, it is more than adequate for coding since it comprises four base pairs. Given the dimensions of DNA in the article, I'm sure one could put together a fairly simple formulation for how much "information" that represents. I'm sure it's more than enough. After all, DNA operates on a base 4 code while your computer operates on a base 2 code of 1s and zeros.

Is that sufficient proof that DNA is "designed?" Of course not. The mechanisms of evolution of the DNA code is at least theoretically understood and even observed. After all, bacteria are seen to frequently exchange DNA information between each other. http://www.pnas.org/content/97/2/859.full.pdf

The human DNA strand has considerable amounts of what has been argued by many scientists to be "junk" DNA but is it really? Some of it is believed to be the remnants of earlier infections that have transcribed themselves onto the human genome.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1187282/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528203730.htm

It's pretty simple to imagine that, over the long course of DNA evolution, one could see this supposed "junk" DNA being seconded into other functions.

And this is where we come to an important point: not "how much" information there is but what that information tells us. After all, it's coding like this that give scientists important "clocks" for tracing evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE1cMolecularclocks.shtml

The question seems obvious. However, as you can see, the answer is a lot more subtle and complex. This seems to be a problem many have with science. It doesn't always make for simple answers. Indeed, some of the answers can be quite counterintuitive. However, until someone comes up with a way to falsify evolution such as a fossil out of place in the fossil record or some other method, evolution is the best explanation we have.

Remember, you've argued before that the animals we see are simply the way they are and there is no proof of evolution. However, I would point out again, that doesn't explain how we got these animals in the first place. Evolution does.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 831
Evolution.
Posted: 12/13/2010 3:11:11 PM
^^^^^^

A woman could also make a quick trip to a hardware store & buy a stud detector in the tools section.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 832
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/13/2010 6:16:06 PM
RE Msg: 1794 by susan_cd:
A woman could also make a quick trip to a hardware store & buy a stud detector in the tools section.
True.

Or, she could get herself a nail-gun, and "nail" herself.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 833
Evolution.
Posted: 12/13/2010 6:19:16 PM

Or, she could get herself a nail-gun, and "nail" herself


And now we're back to krebby's "leavin it up to a mechanical device" LOL.
 colt8301
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 834
Evolution.
Posted: 12/17/2010 3:41:16 AM

For $1,995 and a cheek swab sent off for DNA analysis, customers can find the love of their lives, or so says Eric Holzle, a Massachusetts engineer and long-time dater. Kerry Grens spoke to him on December 11, the day the site went live. At the time, he was driving, and didn't know if anyone had signed up.



Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!who comes up with these "hustles"? People actually do this, boy I wish i had me a PHD and little more brains to come up with crazy sh&t like this.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 836
Evolution.
Posted: 12/17/2010 2:22:11 PM

1. My own grandmothers


Better be careful there, according to ancient folklore, 1 of the many ways to become a vampire is to have sex with you grandparent.

Hmmmmm.

Let's see, you'd be (virtually) immortal, but you'd have to avoid direct sunlight & you'd have to drink the blood of the living....

I dunno, there must be a downside to it, but I can't see it
 colt8301
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 837
Evolution.
Posted: 12/17/2010 4:33:28 PM

There is nothing crazy about this.


I think it's crazy, I don't think our ancestors( as bruttish, racist, sexist, and every other "ist" there is) went through all of that just to get a partner, I see what you are saying with the "natural" pheromones and all that scientific data but give me a break "nothing is guaranteed"(I don't care what scientist say) Just because my dna is match perfectly doesn't mean "peaches and cream", moreover if it doesn't work I'm out of 2000 grand and I wouldn't drop 2000 grand even if I had it.

Fosh Fish, I'm not "sneering" I'm flabbergasted.....just like when people pay 100, 200 dollars an hour to listen to their problems on a couch, if I had the money I wouldn't give to some doctor or scientist who claims to "match" me perfectly with someone I don't know.


Paul K, lol, you know what's funny, I had always said i wanted to spending my "dying" days in Arizona. Who knows I come up with a "hustle" like this one and I might take you up on that offer.
 colt8301
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 839
Evolution.
Posted: 12/18/2010 7:03:41 AM
Lol Franknstein902, lol if you knew me, you would know I detest the word marriage. When someone asks me when I'm taking the plunge I say "Blasphemy" . I always believed how it really should be is we would partner up raise the offspring and move on when I'm tired of you or you tired of me. Obviously now there is no need for that because we aren't at the bottom of the food chain running from saber tooth cats and raptors and sh*t. We would be overpopulated.
Marriage is yet another "hustle" that some a%$hole made up to make money from. Look all I'm saying is I feel we don't need some scientist, Q-tip, and computer to tell us what we already know. Looking in the mirror I could tell what I "should" get with. Someone who looks like me(not my mother or sister or relative lol), similar back ground, education, attitudes about life, in decent shape. Lol this is preached to us the minute we are born, people may not say it verbally but these are things that are seen now not heard. These scientist have been testing this crap and apes and rats......yeah no s*&t. Are we that dumb? When it comes to "romance" and "love" (another hustle people capitalize on) we she leave the scientific probabilities and equations at the door and trust ourselves. I know I trust my gut. I told people at work about this dna thing and they reacted to it the same way I did. It amazed them that people line up in "droves" to get help for sh*& they already know.


Foshfish, lol I think match making is crazy too(nobody can match me but me). Whether you pay for it or friend did it for you, it's another way people can blame others if the match didn't work out. I trust no one but myself, that way if it's f%cked I can take full responsibility for my choices. A professional matchmaker=another hustler and someone to blame.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >