spuriousmonkey

symmetry is extremely important for living organisms...and all organisms have soem sort of symmetry...however, most people are now referring to perfect symmetry...and that belongs in the physics forum probably. most animals are bilateral symmetric and this means that specific body axis have to be established during the development of an organism. And these exis create further positional information which is then used to create even more positional information etc.... in short...symmetry can create complexity

we only have about 30.000 genes according to the last count..still quite a formidable number though.

plasmids are really simple are a natural part of bacteria to exchange genetic information...hence a virus could have evolved from plasmids?!

i put mine on a webiste first, but i think that there is also an option to get it straight from your computer... make sure it is not too big...i think that the correct size is 100*100pixels

to be more specific, didn't they think that viruses evolved from plasmids???

the shitty thing is that for every answer we get right we receive 3 or more questions free of charge....

these mice show that it isn't so much that eating less increases your life expectancy, but the lack of fat tissue...or something like that...

they made these transgenic mice that could eat all they want, stay thin, and live longer...

although largely bilateral symmetrically

if you think humans are perfectly shaped you should ask the question why we have hemorrhoids

Your sentence doesn't make much sense, but I will give it a go. You would need some kind of standard for deformation. Are you going to classify every deformation as deformation, or are you going to make subclasses, such as lightly deformed, moderately deformed, highly deformed. If I interpret your post correctly you would like to see if the deformations get less if frogs from a polluted area are kept in clean water. Each successive generation should be either be less deformed, or one could expect that the deformity disappears immediately with the first new generation in clean water. This kind of information could easily be put in a table, bit since I am not sure what you want exactly I am not going to write much more.

'on the origin of species', charles darwin.

maybe there is no more evolution necessary once you reach our level of 'intelligence'? How much intelligence do you really need to tie your shoelaces or shove your dinner into the microwave, or push a button?

there are no fixed answers in science, just data and interpretation.

as for concise: most transgenic mice with a gene knocked out hardly have a phenotype. There is an awful lot of redundancy on the genetic and developmental level.

sorry....i forgot a word.. is there a alternative scientific theory?

we might not know exactly how it happened, but it is not like we have no clue how chirality could come about

you could check if frogs in polluted water have less offspring or if there is more mortality in offspring... if you want to revers the effect you breed the frogs in polluted water...let them lay eggs...keep them there for a while until the tadpoles come out...transport half to a clean tank...the other half can remain in polluted water... so you could also just collect tadpoles from a polluted site to make it simpler...keep half in water collected from that site and half in clean water...voila...see who do better and in what way. more mortality? delayed growth? deformations? etc.

is there an alternative theory?

actually, chirality would be logical if first life obeyed the rules of evolution and natural selection. The first succesful biological systems had to be specific for a certain chirality because the enzymatic activity depends on it if i am not wrong. It would be more efficient then if all molecules had the same chirality.

This rightly leads the general public to believe that evolution by natural selection is, in fact, an all-encompassing, all-agreed upon theory by the scientific community.

from Nature 421, 884 - 886 (2003) 'Tissue engineering: The beat goes on' it was about tissue engineering and especially growing a heart. The biggest proponent of growing a heart in vitro said a few years ago that it could be done in 10 years with 5 billion$. Now he is backing out however, because he was basically full of it back then. What he says in the article: "In retrospect, Sefton concedes that LIFE's ten-year timescale was unrealistic. "We were trying to capture the attention of the public," he admits. He now thinks that it may be 25 years before a patient receives a lab-grown heart, and refuses to speculate on the price tag. But he is still pursuing funding, and remains convinced that the project could produce tangible results within ten years. "We could probably have something that could work crudely," Sefton claims. "Not something ready to transplant into patients, but something you could hold in your hand." i shall translate this for you...25 years in biological research is a ludricrous long time to contemplate. Just go back 25 years and think what we were doing back then. in conclusion. No we won't be growing any organs, let alone bodies, soon other than the normal biological way.