Where does everyone stand in regards to...

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]why would you use voles for your comparison when there is are many much better canidates out there, like non-human primates

I didn't use them... someone else did. voles are easier to experiment on. using a primate would not be very efficient.

Quote[/b] ] lets see i can think of only one that practices monogomy(gibbons) and they only stay together until that one offspring is raised and then they may find a new parnter

and? they had two types of voles. When you put a certain gene into a polygomous vole, it became monogomous, showing it's genetic.

Quote[/b] ]so i would say comparing voles and humans i not a very good comparison, i know lets compare humans and gnus they are both mammels, both have hair, both have brians. why not gnus?

If there are polygomous gnus and you can add a gene and make them monogomous, there's no reason why not.
voles are easier to test. Voles have smaller brains and you can add genes more easily to them (I'm assuming they did it with viruses... but I don't know).
The whole point of that experiment was to show monogomy and polygomy (or however you spell that ) is genetic.

 

[ktulu]

i know what your saying but first off how long does this species live? second i mean the orignal population that the first female was taken from, could the hybrids cross with it successfully if so then its not a new species, i know what your trying to prove here and im saying that not enough evidence is present in what you say to prove speciation, just because you have a change in one does not mean that it is proof that it speciated, also is the new "species" able to live in the wild if not its just a genetic anonomly

and ps, i cant get it to work to let me respond to just parts of your post for somereason so unless you want 35 posts for everyone i make i have to do it that way.

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 23 2005,3:19)]The whole point of that experiment was to show monogomy and polygomy (or however you spell that ) is genetic.

in voles it proves it for no other species, and is it cerial monogomy(only one partner at a time) or true monogomy(having only one mate for life, even if the other one dies)

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]and ps, i cant get it to work to let me respond to just parts of your post for somereason so unless you want 35 posts for everyone i make i have to do it that way.

oh great :-/

Quote[/b] ]i know what your saying but first off how long does this species live?

fruit flies live only a couple of days. Even if they lived months, the experiment was over years.

Quote[/b] ]also is the new "species" able to live in the wild if not its just a genetic anonomly

that is irrelevant. evolution IS genetic "anomolies" that just happen to be good in that environment. The mutations of the lab population were good in the lab, so it doesn't matter how they would do in the wild. It's like saying that polar bears aren't another species from black bears because "in the wild" (the black bear's environment) the polar bear would die.

Quote[/b] ] second i mean the orignal population that the first female was taken from, could the hybrids cross with it successfully if so then its not a new species

could what hybrids cross with what successfully?

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]it cerial monogomy(only one partner at a time) or true monogomy(having only one mate for life, even if the other one dies)

why does it matter if it's true or serial? that's irrelevant. when you put a gene of the monogomous (who cares what kind of monogomy?) vole into the polygomous vole, the polygomous vole becomes the same kind of monogomous as the monogomous vole, showing that monogemy is genetic.

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 23 2005,3:31)]

Quote[/b] ]it cerial monogomy(only one partner at a time) or true monogomy(having only one mate for life, even if the other one dies)

why does it matter if it's true or serial? that's irrelevant. when you put a gene of the monogomous (who cares what kind of monogomy?) vole into the polygomous vole, the polygomous vole becomes the same kind of monogomous as the monogomous vole, showing that monogemy is genetic.

you are only proving its genetic in voles, thats it, not humans, not gibbons, not any other creature.

and i am asking about the orginal hybrid of the species that supposedly speciated in the lab, can it interbreed with its orginal population, the one the orginal female came from.


and yes survival is relivent becaues in evolution do you know how many genetic anonomlies have come long that did not survive, artifical survival in a lab is not proof of evolution.

and the type of monogomy is important because it has differnt impacts on the population and it also may have a connection to whether or not it is genetic, one type maybe the other not.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]and i am asking about the orginal hybrid of the species that supposedly speciated in the lab, can it interbreed with its orginal population, the one the orginal female came from.

it was a single WILD impregnated female, so unless you start getting ridiculous and say that someone just happened to bring along a different species of fruit fly from another country and they just happened to catch that female that was impregnated from the non-native species, yes... it could interbreed with the original population.

Quote[/b] ]and yes survival is relivent becaues in evolution do you know how many genetic anonomlies have come long that did not survive, artifical survival in a lab is not proof of evolution.

it's irrelevant and it does prove evolution. The genetic thing DID survive in the lab and that's all that mattered. In the environment in the lab, the mutations were good so they got selected. After many selections they were so different (genetically) that they couldn't interbreed with the original population.

Quote[/b] ]and the type of monogomy is important because it has differnt impacts on the population and it also may have a connection to whether or not it is genetic, one type maybe the other not.

it IS genetic!!! it does not matter AT ALL what type it is. When you put one gene into the vole, it becomes monogomous. that shows it's genetic!!! it is TOTALLY irrelevant what kind of monogamy it is.

Quote[/b] ]you are only proving its genetic in voles, thats it, not humans, not gibbons, not any other creature.

OY....

I'm just going to stop posting till I cool down...

 

[ktulu]

alpha, i think maybe we need to just agree to disagree, i mean you have presented what you have to say, i have said what i have to say and we just dont agree. Ok so lets just agree to disagree.

wait i dont agree to that LOL.

and please i did not mean for you to get all worked up, its just, nevermind if i continue its just going to spiral right back to where we are now. ok so we dont agree but no hard feelings i hope.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

no hard feelings. I just don't see your point.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (Treaqum @ Jan. 22 2005,7:45)]Well the gene could still be their but recessive. It is on a strand of DNA, you cannot eliminate an intire strand. The gene which make appendixes could be on the same strand as the one that makes lungs. You do not need or use your appendix but it is still there because if that stand was eliminated you lungs would be also.

What do you mean by strand? Chromosome?

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 23 2005,4:07)]no hard feelings. I just don't see your point.

neither do i see your proof, but i can respect your difference of opinion.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,8:24)]yes we do. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, aids, allergies, etc. all have at least something to do with genes. You can't completely cure those things. More people die if they have those things than if they don't, so natural selection is happening SLOWLY. As long as there are things that kill some humans more than others because of genes, there will be natural selection.

People do die of those things but they still get to procreate, and pass on those genes. You can't completly cure them because they always get back into the genepool.

 

[RamPuppy]

you guys are goin way to fast! take a breath and go outside for a while! 10 paes in one day?

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]People do die of those things but they still get to procreate, and pass on those genes. You can't completly cure them because they always get back into the genepool.

you'd have to know a lot of statistics (if more are coming into the gene pool than are dying before they have kids) ... I really doubt they're balanced. they're either increasing or decreasing so either way that's still evolution.

Quote[/b] ]you guys are goin way to fast! take a breath and go outside for a while! 10 paes in one day?

LOL! I know exactly what you mean. I don't think I've ever had to read ten full pages but with the ones I've had to read and reply to I'm POOPED! (LOL I love saying that!)

 

[endparenthesis]

That's why I write such long posts... can fit more in fewer thread pages.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,11:10)]

Quote[/b] ]People do die of those things but they still get to procreate, and pass on those genes. You can't completly cure them because they always get back into the genepool.

you'd have to know a lot of statistics (if more are coming into the gene pool than are dying before they have kids) ... I really doubt they're balanced. they're either increasing or decreasing so either way that's still evolution.

Taking into consideration the fact that world population is increasing, it's logical to think that more people are being born with the gene that the people that are dying.

I don't think it's enough for you to call it natural selection.

First off, natural selection is environmental, not disease. There's always been disease and you can't consider that evolution because there always will be. A person can live with most genetic diseases, and procreate and only in rare genetic disorders does the person die from it, or is in such a bad condition that they don't get to produce offspring.

Let's not consider diseases natural selection since the genes are just killing the random people that have it and is not killing judging upon how fit they are for survival. For example someone with heart disease could be healthy and have many offspring then suddenly die from cardiac arrest. Diseases are more "random" than organized, not just killing the weaker but the sometimes stronger.

Think of diseases as a wild card. The unlucky one draws it and has the disease or dies on the spot if its a rare one.

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 23 2005,5:20)]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,11:10)]

Quote[/b] ]People do die of those things but they still get to procreate, and pass on those genes. You can't completly cure them because they always get back into the genepool.

you'd have to know a lot of statistics (if more are coming into the gene pool than are dying before they have kids) ... I really doubt they're balanced. they're either increasing or decreasing so either way that's still evolution.

Taking into consideration the fact that world population is increasing, it's logical to think that more people are being born with the gene that the people that are dying.

I don't think it's enough for you to call it natural selection.

First off, natural selection is environmental, not disease. There's always been disease and you can't consider that evolution because there always will be. A person can live with most genetic diseases, and procreate and only in rare genetic disorders does the person die from it, or is in such a bad condition that they don't get to produce offspring.

Let's not consider diseases natural selection since the genes are just killing the random people that have it and is not killing judging upon how fit they are for survival. For example someone with heart disease could be healthy and have many offspring then suddenly die from cardiac arrest. Diseases are more "random" than organized, not just killing the weaker but the sometimes stronger.

Think of diseases as a wild card. The unlucky one draws it and has the disease or dies on the spot if its a rare one.

if the disease does not affect people reproduction then it is not subject to natural selection. also things like heart disease are a problem because we have increase our lifespans and decreased our activity patterns, but thats a whole new topic.

disease can be part of the enviroment, and also alot of diseases can affect reproduction rates, which means they are a factor in evolution. some people also gain a resistance to certain diseases with their genetic make up(sickle cell and malaria, tay-sachs and TB). so diseases can be something natural selection works on.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 22 2005,11:30)]

Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 23 2005,5:20)]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,11:10)]

Quote[/b] ]People do die of those things but they still get to procreate, and pass on those genes. You can't completly cure them because they always get back into the genepool.

you'd have to know a lot of statistics (if more are coming into the gene pool than are dying before they have kids) ... I really doubt they're balanced. they're either increasing or decreasing so either way that's still evolution.

Taking into consideration the fact that world population is increasing, it's logical to think that more people are being born with the gene that the people that are dying.

I don't think it's enough for you to call it natural selection.

First off, natural selection is environmental, not disease. There's always been disease and you can't consider that evolution because there always will be. A person can live with most genetic diseases, and procreate and only in rare genetic disorders does the person die from it, or is in such a bad condition that they don't get to produce offspring.

Let's not consider diseases natural selection since the genes are just killing the random people that have it and is not killing judging upon how fit they are for survival. For example someone with heart disease could be healthy and have many offspring then suddenly die from cardiac arrest. Diseases are more "random" than organized, not just killing the weaker but the sometimes stronger.

Think of diseases as a wild card. The unlucky one draws it and has the disease or dies on the spot if its a rare one.

if the disease does not affect people reproduction then it is not subject to natural selection. also things like heart disease are a problem because we have increase our lifespans and decreased our activity patterns, but thats a whole new topic.

disease can be part of the enviroment, and also alot of diseases can affect reproduction rates, which means they are a factor in evolution. some people also gain a resistance to certain diseases with their genetic make up(sickle cell and malaria, tay-sachs and TB). so diseases can be something natural selection works on.

Genetic Disorders.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

I think that there can be subtle changes to humans over time depending on things like disease and natural disasters maybe. Girls still do hold some power in evolution when it comes to sexual selection, but anyone can procreate if they want to. Over time we might see small changes of our current states. Maybe a difference in our sizes or small changes to other structures, but nothing dramatic, and there's no more natural selection since we aren't in nature anymore.

 

[nepenthes gracilis]

Does anyone realize this is a neverending battle?