Evolution is the knowledge that science explains about where we are from. Religion against that as if it's true there is no such the creator that they believe. My thread is to discuss more likely about evolution. As we know that DNA is the genetic code that form us the way we are, and so all the living creatures in the planet. What make it change? Which evolution theory is more likely believable? (Natural Selection? Adaptation?,...)

Here is my idea. I don't believe in adaptation. because I don't believe that desire can change genetic code. For example, snakes, as they found the bones that look like it used to be legs before, they can not think that i don't wanna use legs no more and then it effect the genetic code that transfer to the next generation. or even the action that they move like snake when they still have legs effect their DNA. Natural Selection is the weirdo became famous, and existing. The accidentally mutation change and be better in environment became the survivals. That is more possible. But what make the mutation happen? must be something that effect the reproductive cells bioticly. For me, there are 3 things that I can think of, accidentally aligning, food, and radiation. Maybe it just happen. Maybe food that we eat effect our reproductive cells. what separate our kind to be 3 big main groups? do you believe that food might has magic? for example, the tree that is tall has biotic chemical that effect their gene to make it stay tall, then giraffe ancestors eat it, it effect their reproductive cells accidentally and make the baby tall. What if rice effect the reproductive cells of human to mutate the yellow skin, and wheat make it white. Is it possible that the nutrition or some kind of biotic chemical from food does something with genetic code with the cells before meiosis? the duplication before the process might grab something from environment that does not suppose to be. and the last guessing is the radiation from the sun did it.

The only thing I can say about your post is that you dont know what Darwinism says or how it works.. so it is not surprising that you dont believe in it. I would recommend picking up a book on the topic.

It has nothing to do with snakes wanting to change or any such thing.

"snakes, as they found the bones that look like it used to be legs before, they can not think that i don't wanna use legs no more and then it effect the genetic code that transfer to the next generation."

according to my confusing sentense, it means i don't believe that is true. I don't believe in mutation that cause by desire. but the genetic changed from other factors.

I have a theory on DNA and evolution.

We know essentially that DNA is an instruction booklet. I believe that there are three sets of information.

Stage 1:
The first set of instructions is 'hard-wired', meaning it shouldn't change unless there has been damage to the DNA. This set of instructions tells the fertilized reproductive cell how to divide, specialize and function. It tells how many limbs, fingers, toes, eyes, etc. we should have. It tells eye color, hair color, how many of each organ we should have and where they should be. Stage 1, therefore is an explicit set of instructions regarding the formation of the individual, and this should not change.

Stage 2:
This is a set of instructions that tell the individual how they will develop from infancy through death. It tells how old we are likely to become, at what age our hair will fall out, at what age we are likely to reach maximum height, etc. However, these instructions are variable to the environment and can be affected by a wide range of variables, including the environment, diet, lifestyle, and more. For example, genes can pass along susceptibilities and immunities. I may have a gene that predisposes me to the development of cancer, but it doesn't mean I will GET cancer. Likewise, I may have a gene for baldness, but the exact age of onset will depend on diet, stress, health and environment. So these instructions allow the individual to respond to the environment: a necessary adaptability considering that if the organism cannot adapt to changes in environment, that species will likely perish.

Stage 3:
Now we get into MY theory. I believe that DNA may also be a set of instructions for the development of the species. These are extremely loose contingency plans, like a whole set of IF-THEN statements. This stage of DNA instructions includes redundancies and lots of 'dead-end' code that will never be activated ... unless the conditions are met. These are also heavily influenced by sexual selection, and this is heavily influenced by the attractiveness inherent in variables that increase the likelihood of survival of offspring. So, for example, people tend to respond better to authority figures who are taller rather than shorter. If you have two essentially equal and identical leader-candidates who are unequal only in height, people tend to gravitate towards the taller. We have a subconscious bias against short leaders (Napoleon being a notable exception ). The result is that tall people are considered more attractive and therefore 'get more' and therefore the species gets taller: but in my opinion, this is built into the system. We have genes for increasing height. Tall Gene + Tall Gene = Taller Gene.

Now, let's say we have food shortages and rationing. Bigger people will have a harder time getting enough energy to fulfill their needs. In a civilized society, we may see people get shorter (as the taller people tend to die young, and therefore make less attractive mates). However, in an uncivilized society, bigger people crush little people, take their food and survive leaving the little people to die. Thus big people make good mates and we continue growing.

It should also be noted that it is not merely bigger-and-stronger that gets mating privileges. Also beauty has a factor: thus blond-blue-eyed people are popular.

This is extremely simplified because I don't really want to write a book here, but this is my thought.

kirin-rex said: Also beauty has a factor: thus blond-blue-eyed people are popular.

no offense but did you think before you wrote that?

Mandela: yes I did. Did you?

I'm white, Mandela. I'm giving you an example from MY cultural background. What am I supposed to do? Talk about what my worthless white f'king ass thinks MIGHT possibly be beautiful to another racial group? How the f'k would I know about that? I'm putting you on ignore. Please imagine what I think of you.

That you for sharing that, it's very interesting.

but, stage 3 that you talk about, remember that from the beginning if the science is right, life developed from microorganism. them or us still have the same basis to be or reproduce the species which is by cell division. what made the changes? does that happen in the process of division? because before a cell does the division the genes remain in pairs. it should make 100% pair, but if the process grab some other material from within the nucleus, in the level that doesn't cause cancer but transfer that cell to next generation by meiosis.

chill kirin i was just saying to me it kind of sounded like you were saying blue eyed blonde haired people looked better than everybody else and i was giving you the chance to correct yourself. Most white people are not blue eyed and blonde haired so i don't know what the hell your being white has to do with it.

forget it ... this is pointless.

anyway, animals are not picky, as long as male and female i think.

Toniol.. no one.. no scientists.. claims mutation is caused by "desire". Mutations are random. The successful ones (ones that increase the odds of the GENE being reproduced) continue on..the harmful ones disappear from the gene pool.

Mandela.. Kirin is simply referring to sexual selection. His example is not.. correct..because he is not talking about sexual selection as it happens.. People electing tall people doesnt mean people will get taller. Short and tall people get married and reproduce at about the same rate I would guess so there is no selection pressure for "taller" genes.

However, there is probably some selection pressure for "blond" in some populations, but the result is not influence on genes but on behavior.. the popularity of blond hair dye. This would be a "meme" , not a gene (a meme is basically a thought or mental process or behavior that in many ways acts like a gene..).

You're right, Vet. As usual.

But try this on for size. In modern, developed nations, responsible people choose to have only as many children as they can afford to raise AND educate. Irresponsible people have however many children the GOVERNMENT will support. The result is that selfish, irresponsible people have more children.

You want to know the future of humankind? A bunch of lazy, selfish, ignorant slobs who sit around crying because nobody's serving them. That's the future of humankind and we're getting there fast.

Don't you think that we're like mold or bacteria that roaming a pie? Spread and use the resources. in the case, evolution is not so good. i do believe that disaster come to wipe us off time to time.

Kirin.. yes, irresponsible people have more children in rich countries that some responsible people.. but that does NOT mean that is humankinds future. For a number of reasons. The number of people in any country "having as many children" as the government will pay for does not outnumber the productive members of society. Furthermore, the rich countries where this holds true have a minority of the population of the planet. The lazy men of China are unlikely to find themselves a partner in the sexually unbalanced, booming economy there, likewise India.

Toniol..again..I really, really seriously recommend you read a book on evolution. Not a pop culture book..something somewhat serious. Go back and read Darwin himself if you can.. if you want something modern, then Gould or Dawkins. Anyway, on to your comments: evolution does not make any claims on being "good". It isnt good, doesnt make things "better". Living things simply evolve. They arent good or bad.

Awesome logic, Vet. I bow to your awesomeness in all sincerity. You really are a person who thinks things through.

I just read it from wikipedia that's it, i don't want to waste much time as darwin also a guesser too, simple, because he didn't live millions of year. it's all theory as no body can't really prove. unless someone really look to cells and see significant change of DNA strain which is impossible anyway.

i believe that as humans collectively there is also what i call reality evolution which is the evolution of what the collective consciousness thinks is possible.

I also believe that our entire purpose on this planet is evolution of the spirit not as a whole but individually and with succesful evolution your presence on this planet is no longer neccessary and so you move on.

in buddhism, there were the time of, New world forming, new world preparation, living human, and the destruction and inexist period. each one they compair with a rock cubic 16 kilometer, every 100 years has and angel rub a peace of cloth as thing as smoke over top until it's flat. there are other they called continents but the sky in each continents has different color tone of sky and different shapes of the looks. one of 7 belongings of great king of the world is cristal disc which is his vehecle between each continents. Evolution seems to be little part of what's going on, and i think they talking about only in this galaxy.

There's somthing very strainge about how people in the past 4-5000 years ago know about the solar system, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlcPWa6SomE&feature=related

maybe our evolution were not from this world at all.

Toniol.. without direct observation one can still know something. Darwin is not "just guessing". He made predictions, all of which come true. This is what science does. And as time goes by, more and more observations lend weight to the idea. Its not "guessing". You dont even understand the theory (as evidenced by comments in this thread) and you choose to ignore it based on your ignorance. Thats whats called "willful ignorance".

Natural Selection theory of darwin is not everything about Evolution, Vetamur. It's just a part that crossing over between related species. it doesn't explain how ancestor of fish became an elephant or monkey. or cold blood to mammal from natural selection.

"Debate about the mechanisms of evolution continued, and Darwin could not explain the source of the heritable variations which would be acted on by natural selection. Like Lamarck, he thought that parents passed on adaptations acquired during their lifetimes,[171] a theory which was subsequently dubbed Lamarckism.[172] In the 1880s August Weismann's experiments indicated that changes from use and disuse were not heritable, and Lamarckism gradually fell from favour.[173][174] More significantly, Darwin could not account for how traits were passed down from generation to generation. In 1865 Gregor Mendel found that traits were inherited in a predictable manner.[175] When Mendel's work was rediscovered in 1900, disagreements over the rate of evolution predicted by early geneticists and biometricians led to a rift between the Mendelian and Darwinian models of evolution.
This contradiction was reconciled in the 1930s by biologists such as Ronald Fisher. The end result was a combination of evolution by natural selection and Mendelian inheritance, the modern evolutionary synthesis.[176] In the 1940s, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues and the subsequent publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, demonstrated the physical basis for inheritance. Since then, genetics and molecular biology have become core parts of evolutionary biology and have revolutionized the field of phylogenetics."

You said to other people ignorance, you are narrow minded and ignorance yourself. the thing is you don't have to blame others. if you say you believe in the guy theory and share by explain it how it's like that would be more helpful.