Thread: Evolution

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 . 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.