habana999

I wasn't implying that any species had to be 'superior' in the way indicated in my previous post (i.e. top of the food chain), in order to survive unchanged for millions of years. I noted that as 'a' reason with regards to the human race and used dinosaurs as a comparison to back up that thought. Horseshoe crabs haven't evolved because they have been, for 445 million years, the 'optimal design' for survival within their environment. Obviously species evolve or don't evolve for different reasons. It would be interesting however, to consider what 'natural' physiological changes will happen amongst humans over time. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm

Susan Boyle to win Britain's Got Talent

This guy is a wind up, surely? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I admire your diplomacy

I know that nature doesnt 'care' if we are superior, the fact is we are, in the same way the dinosaurs were over other species around at the time. Some lived for 35 million years with no 'significant' change.. they didn't need to adapt. Of course if we consider genetic engineering amongst humans beings, we will change rather more rapidly but still, I believe, not to the extent that that small vole has done over the last 65 million years.

Men only have one X chromosome. Yes one X chromosome in a XX cell is inactivated but that inactivated X chromosome varies between cell types. So, I would imagine women are 50% less likely to have dysfunctional MOA the same way they are 50% less likely to be with sex linked 'disorders' like colour blindness. I wasnt saying that men or women had higher/lower 'dosages', just that men would have higher incidence of MOA dysfunction. Just an observation is all.

Studies show that monoamine oxidase (A & B) dysfunction can lead to aggressive and violent behavior as well as depression and substance abuse (all 'behaviours'). These enzymes breaks down chemicals like adrenalin and noradrenalin (epinephrine and norepinephrine) and are what make you 'calm down' after an argument. Interestingly the genes coding for MOA-A & MOA-B are found on the X chromosome. Perhaps explaining why men are more likely to become involved in activities such as drug abuse and violence. I wonder how many men are in prison because of some sort of 'deficiency' that leads to anti-social behaviour?

Who's genes are we passing on? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So life and reproduction is all about passing on our genes to the next generation, right? Yup But we're not passing on OUR genes, we're passing on our grandparent's genes, and our great-grandparent's, etc. Yes we ARE passing on 'our' genes, they are 'our' genes because they are unique to us. Noone else has that combination.. think genetic recombination After several dozen generations, are there any of "our own" genes left that are getting passed on? yes for sure, but not 100% of them (0% if as is often the case the female has been procreating with another male) Would our ancestors of 65 million years ago appreciate that "their" genes are still being passed on by us... assuming we're still small, vole-like creatures? Well I doubt small vole like creatures would really care. Only some groups in society today conciously care if their genes are being passed on In another 65 million years, how many of our genes will be "in the pool", and if the answer is a big fat zero, well, what does that say about the importance of reproduction? Well i dont think the result would be a big fat zero, obviously there are genes that enable us to live and breathe and without them we would die out. Most mutations that do occur are maladpative and therefore don't survive to the next generation, but yes of course genes will diversify over the next 65 million years but to the extent of the last 65 million years is doubtful (i think). We have reached the 'state' of being that makes us superior to the rest of the animal kingdom. Anyway you only have to look at research which shows certain genes have been about for thousands/millions of years and have enabled us to link species to species through the ages. As for the importance of reproduction.. well thats a done deal, our genes make us horny.. we reproduce Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged

Absolutely iNow, and if you think of a hypothetical case of one sibling who is perhaps a great scholar/business man and the other who is frequently in prison, yet both brought up by the same parents in the same house going to the same school. But look at the possible differences in life experience between the two... one is loved and cherished and perhaps came along at the 'right moment' therefore producing (through nurture) a child confident and assertive within their peer group. Or the other child who was born at a time in their parent's life when things weren't so good and as a result they grew up awkward and shy and perhaps fell victim to bullying as a result of that. But of course a complete role reversal could happen! And where genetic recombination is concerned when no two children really are the same. They could literally.... genetically.. be like chalk and cheese. The possibilities really are endless.

i guess i have to be quicker writing my post as I seemed to have been logged out for inactivity!!! I have a question that has been puzzling me since studying biology of the cell and basic genetics Why is it that the Barr body only forms in the XX phenotype and not the XY phenotype, i.e. how does one X chromosome know it has another beside it? Interestingly while trying to find this out I came across two studies on familial skewed X inactivation stating that where a high inactivation of either the male or female X chromosome occured (it only stated female X chromosome inactivation but I am trying not to be biased here) there was a high incidence of spontaneous abortion: 'Sangha et al. (1999)' account for a significant proportion (i.e., as much as 18%) of couples with recurrent spontaneous abortion. Lanasa et al. (1999)reported similar results for women who experienced 2 or more spontaneous abortions. Natures way of preventing hereditary genetic disease? Comments appreciated http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=300087

hello

Ok heres my take on this 'evolution versus creationism' people who now believe in creationism not so long ago would never have accepted Darwin's theory. BUT now that it has been widely accepted as a bloody good explanation of how we came to be what we are today with actual 'scientific' backing they realise they would look like fools (and risk the end of their religion altogether) did they not accept at least some of it. backing their 'theory' up with quotations from a book written by 'man' (oh sorry those good people of the church/monarchy [same thing] who had so much power back in the day that they had to make sure uneducated Joe Public were god fearing people). Difference now is that people are educated...whether they like it or not and hell when you give people an education they also get an opinion. People have a hard time accepting that they just 'exist'. This whole argument is so much more sociological than scientific or theological. Anyway if the Christians finally became evolutionists (is that a word?) then the Muslims would take over because the scientists are so liberal!! And no god fearing christian wants that now do they?