gc1765

One of the first lessons we learn about genetics in highschool is the story about the experiment conducted by August1881 who proved that you can cut the tails off of generation after generation of mouse, and yet the next generation will be born with tails. How is it, then, that a lack of mandibular exercise will result in the next generation being born with a weaker jawline? We owe it to the memory of those generations of maimed mice to remember that acquired characteristics are not passed on to following generations. You can eat processed food, live on soup and pate, or pull out all your teeth and suck your meals through a straw, and it won't make a lick of difference to what your kids look like. A weaker jawline evolves if, and only if, a weaker jawline provides some survival advantage or greater reproductive success: higher odds of weak jawlined individuals passing contributing that characteristic to future generations. But that would seem contradictory to the whole thesis that future generations will be choosy about their reproductive partners and place high emphasis on looks. Are we sure this theory was written by an expert? I still say hoax. valuable Kimmy-Points up for grabs! -k I think you are correct. The only thing I could add is that it might theoretically be possible for smaller chins to evolve. Theoretically, making a smaller chin would take less energy so that could provide a very slight advantage. But that is assuming that 'natural selection' is still playing a role. I think attractiveness is related to health & fitness, so is it possible that in many years from now we could think of small chins as sexy? Who knows, sounds pretty crazy to me but I guess it's possible. I believe in the past humans did have larger jaws & differently shaped teeth, which evolved and got smaller. But 'natural selection' was probably a lot more important hundreds of thousands of years ago than it is today. I don't know if an 'expert' wrote this or not, but it's still a pretty bad theory in my opinion.

From the link above: While Turner challenged people to find examples of him breaching caucus secrecy, conservative blogger Stephen Taylor found an example of a May 23 posting that Taylor says was later altered. If Taylor is correct, the post was altered to soften a report about a briefing that Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice gave on settling aboriginal people with outstanding claims over abuse at residential schools. However, Taylor doesn't suggest when the post may have been altered. So exactly what information was being leaked? Is the May 23 example the only example they could find? Why did it take until October for this to happen if the incident supposedly happened in May?

Sure, in general, but there's bound to be some interbreeding which will lead to a continuum of traits like we see today rather than two distinct species or sub-species. There will always be people in the "middle" or "upper-middle", "lower-middle" etc...Someone in the "upper class" could breed with someone in the "upper-middle" class to give an "upper-upper-middle" class...well, you get the point... Also, even if the rich only breed with the rich, and the poor only breed with the poor, anyone can strike it rich or loose it all. So, someone with "lower class" genes could win the lottery, become rich, and mate with someone with "upper class" genes, and someone with "upper class" genes could go bankrupt and end up with someone with "lower class" genes.

So, who decides what is in "National interest" and therefore justified? God?

I doubt it... For one thing, the "upper" and "lower" class will probably continue to interbreed, as well as breed with the "middle" class. What makes someone genetically superior? A lot of people choose their mate based on money, and anyone can become rich or poor regardless of their genes.

But you just finished saying there is "absolutely no justification to kill whatever the reason" Now you're saying it's justified if national interests are threatened?

Then why are so called Christians (ie bush and his supporters) starting wars that kill people if you believe that there is "absolutely no justification to kill"?

You mean like the anti-israel accusations that have been in the media so much lately? The leadership contest has so far been a lot of attacking eachother, so if anything we've been seeing the "dirt" on these potential leaders rather than the positives.

What's that old saying "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" It seems that America is becoming paranoid about terrorism. Doesn't that mean that the terrorists are winning if their goal is to create TERROR?

Wow, the liberals sure caught up fast. I wonder if it will last?

Well, we can't change our genes (and even if we could that would bring up a whole different moral debate), but we can change our diet. Taxing people for having bad genes isn't going to make their genes any better. Taxing people for eating unhealthy might have an effect.

Over 20,000 people voted for their top names from our original longlist of 100. Not bad, BUT it was from a list of 100 people. How did they choose those 100 people?

Not if it is called "employment equity".... I should have added "in my opinion" to the end of my post. Employment should be given to the person best qualified for the job, regardless of race...in my opinion.

True. I was just adding my two cents.

I hope it would be treated the same way as if the reverse were true. Discrimination against the majority is still discrimination

Where did you hear this?

If God exists, then there are two possibilities: a) God has always existed God exists now, but at some point in the past did not exist Option a) can be ruled out using logic & common sense. God can not have existed for an infinite period of time. I would be happy to "prove" this if you'd like. So, we are left with option . At some point God did not exist, but exists now. So the question is, how did it go from God not existing to God existing? How did that happen?

I used the word "nothing" rather loosely. What I mean is that life came from nothing living. The general consensus is that life arose from organic, "non-living" molecules called ribonucleic acids. Search for "RNA world" or "RNA world hypothesis" on google, that is what most biologists seem to believe.

No and neither can anybody else. What is your point? Personally, I do not care. Since I believe in magic, absolutely anything is possible. Just curious is all. I've met a lot of people who say they can't possibly believe that life on earth arose from "nothing", but have no problem believing that God came from "nothing". I thought perhaps you could shed some light on that for me, as I have been wondering that for a while.

Sure. Why not?? Give me a reason why I should not. Can you answer my second question. How was God created?

Do you believe we were created by God? If so, how was God created?

The two organisms have different characteristics. One is resistant to antibiotics, the other is not. They are not necessarily different species but they are different. If you want to assume that antibiotics makes one "dormant" rather than killing it, that's fine, but it still reduces the ability of the bacteria to reproduce. The resistant bacteria still has the ability to reproduce, even in the presence of antibiotics, so it has "evolved". No. It is impossible to see (in detail) DNA directly (ie with visible light) because the DNA is too small. I have seen evidence for DNA though. I think we've been through this before. It doesn't really matter anyways, the mechanism of evolution, or in other words why the resistant bacteria & the original bacteria are different is irrelevant, the fact is that they are different and that difference is inherited.

I never claimed that a new species was being created. I think you are getting Speciation confused with Evolution . You might want to read these Link and Link as well. Then you will understand that my example is an example of evolution, not speciation. For me to believe in speciation would required some faith, but believing in evolution does not. I believe I already said that a few posts back.

The definition I provided is essentially the same as what is in every biology textbook I've ever read. Do you have a definition which is inconsistent with my example of antibiotic resistant bacteria? Am I the one being had?

However, your experiment is not an example of species evolution. My example shows that "something" (ie a mutation) can happen to organism which provides it with an advantage when it comes to survival & reproduction, and that advantage is passed on to the offspring. According to my definition, this is evolution. This species has "evolved". Do you have a better definition for "evolution" within a species?