admiral_ju00

what is your major?

oh by the way, just between the 2 of us, way to go for keeping this as simple as possible, eh? rofl.

That's Darwin talking. On the other hand, realistically speaking, Mutations are far too rare and unpredictable to be a reliable source driving the evolutionary process. As we all know, most mutations are neutral as they have no visible affect on either the Genotype or the Phenotype of an organism. The bad random mutations are almost always dealt with by the natural selection for against the survival of the organism or at least against it's fitness. The Good Random mutations are extremely rare and just because there was a 'good' random mutation in a genome of one organism, it does not automatically mean that this mutation will be passed on to the offspring. Maybe it has a chance if there are several mutations in a row or affecting and upholding the more or less same alleles, then this mutation may be implemented as part of the norm within the genome of the future generations. However, this is extremely time consuming, extremely rare and statistically can be near impossible to have several 'good' random mutations in a row, one after the other, after the other. As one of the example I was given by many books and of my professors: How many coin tosses will it require to produce 100 consecutive Heads? The answer is quite a large number. Here's a quote from Gordon Rattray Taylor: "........That these sequences of coordinated reactions - and there are literally thousands of them in the human body - should all have arisen by random mutations of single genes is in the highest degree unlikely......." Assuming that the Darwin's theory is correct and the evolution is a process or is driven by Random Mutations and Natural Selection, then it is evolution. Certainly an accumulation of these 'good' mutations and their implementation is evolution. It does not and should not matter if this random mutation cause a single organism to better adapt to it's surroundings or the entire species.

that is precisely what i do. i do not automatically conform to the 1st thing that i hear or read.for to do that is the way of the sukkas:D

you realize that the author of the 1st book is an established Biologist? or let me rephrase that. (by the way, you may be right about Pop. Biology theory and Molecular genetics. they have lots of great, info, practical, theoretical, whathave you, but you know, sometimes it is good to pick up a cliff-notes version of a book that is technical, complex and can be very hard to read. while this won't let you know how things really work in their extreme details, a generalization is not a bad thing, provided that it stays consistent, w/o a spin and as accurate as possible - empirically speaking.), but tell me this: Granted I did not spend too much time looking up their credentials, etc, but tell me this, do these below scientists / authors, etc make a different spin on the stuff they print? So as to one can safely assume that their research is biased, flawed, etc, thereby it is not worth checking out the stuff that they write or work on? Michael Denton - Biochemistry Fritjof Capra - Physicist and systems theorist Bryan Sykes - Professor of Human Genetics Derek Hough - Biologist If so, then are there scientists/authors that the gen. pop. can read from and not worry about the stuff that they read is a bunch of a bs with a spin?

Meaning? What is wrong with my chosen field of study and the materiel I read for it?

like i said in the post prior to the one above, my take on evolution is a result of all of the below sources. among one of the sources for my current standing on the matter are the propositions by various scientists with whom i had the privilege to study, work or read from.(this hasn't changed) many of whom are anthropologists/paleontologists, few that are biologists, and a few social scientists, well, one to be exact. He's a Social Psychologist who embraced the Symbolic Interactionism theory. Then there is the reading stuff(books, magazines, periodicals) I've read quite a bunch of books on the matter, but these are the ones that are the most memorable to me at this time. Books: Evolution: A case of stating the Obvious by Hugh or Hough(can't remember which) Evolution: A theory in Crisis by Denton The Web Of Life by Capra Seven Daughters of Eve by Sykes Origin of Species by Darwin <-- this makes me wonder how any individual can so fully embrace the things that are proposed by Darwin. The book itself has numerous contradictions, errors, screwups and even an appereant loss of interest by Darwin himself I realize that any theory will have it's flaws, lack of definitions, practicality, evidence, applicability,etc, but some of the things proposed there and are accepted are downright retarted. Magazines: AQ(Anthropological Quarterly) and whatever other Anthropology related magazines/journals I can get a chance to read. Love the 1st book as it provides a more or less cliff-notes version of evolution, that and the fact that mr. Hough almost rips Darwin a new back-door orifice. Plus I agree with just about everything he proposes there with only 1 exception. I'd put a bit more value on 'environment' myself. While I wholeheartedly agree that the key to evolution is in our genome and it constantly experiments with things, thereby we may have certain abilities of which we currently do not know about but which will be expressed by everyone member of the homo sapien if something 'drastic' was to happen to our world where our current abilities will either not be enough or simply detrimental. edit: i highly recommend that you read books # 1 and 3.

I just had to stop in here for a last quickie. rofl. Anyway, the answer to your puzzle is in your own question. You asked "where" as opposed to "where, who, and possibly when". Anyway, more on that when i get back.

well, among one of the sources for this notion are the propositions by various scientists with whom i had the priveledge to study, work or read from. i think that this is a plausible notion and agree with. anyway, i got to go for the day, and will probably be back here in a few days. cya by the way, hope our debate does not disinterest you, as i do like to persue it further and get more understanding behind your reasoning as you seem to have in mine. and it is a pleasure debatin' with you.

by General bio. evolution, i mean an evolution that would affect members of the entire species where as Specific bio. evolution will account for individual variation among the members of the species. specific evolution has, is and will continue to exist and develop since instead of affecting all of the members of a given species somewhat equally, it affects a few at a time but not enough to cause a dent in the gene pool.

yes.

Isn't this, precisely what I was talking about? Something will facilitate our need to evolve beyound what we are today, aka: any of your above examples would suffice. Other then that, Individual variation will continue, while the overall species will remain the same. If there is no such agent which will push our need to evolve further then we may simply continue at the current rates.

Agreed. I didn't say H-W is the answer, just an example of how based on it and that of a very small and secluded population, there may be a noticeable effect. H-W is simply a tool, and yes it has it's flaws, etc, but under 'ideal' situations it can work. And an ubran city will never confine to H-W, i know that too:D Agreed. My assumption was and still is, should everything remain as is(which is near impossible due to our constant abuse of the ecology, etc) there won't be an evolution which would affect most or the entire species of humans. Very true. But as the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", right? So if there is no need for us as a species to evolve, then we can continue at the current rate either indefinently or 'till something happens. Which again could have been facilitated as a need due to their change of nutrition. Agreed again.

Judging from your responce, it would appear that I can't speak english nor write it, although I always thought that I did. So let me try again. Cliff-Notes Summary: My Theory: Homo Sapiens are at the pinnacle of General Biological Evolution and can evolve no more as we have no reason to do so. Not in a few hundred, or even a few thousand years if there is no (drastic) change in our world as we now know. (General) Biologica Evolution: Evolution that have a significant effect on most or all of the members of any given species, in this case the Humans. (Specific) Biological Evolution: Evolution that takes place in different places, affecting small or insignificant amounts of a given species, etc, in this case Humams. This usually accounts for specific, individual variation amongst the members of the species, such may be the case with the Hymalayans, Australian aboriginals, Gregory R. Smith, etc. Specific Evolution will continue indefinitely or infinitely, as long as there are variations in our environment, climate, regions, etc. Also the regions where H-W equilibrium can work, there may be evolution amongst the humans(keeping in mind, the criteria for H-W equilibrium and what has to happen in order for it to work). Hope this helped. What are your thoughts? What evolutionary change do you see the Homo Sapiens undergo in a few thousand years or perhaps a few hundred thousands of years at a level of Macro-Evolution(meaning most if not all Humans), assuming that our world remains as it is now? Also, for as much as I love science, I need to reiterate this, hopefully to help some out: Science is a Tool. It was never meant or can predict or provide us with answers or concrete "Facts". Remember, in Science, there is no such thing as a "Fact". It(science) is there to provide us with an empirically-derived solid datum, which we must then combine with the other tools in our personal toolbox and make (hopefully more informed/better) decisions, then we might otherwise.

the queen won't likely to move out on her own unless she senses imminent danger to her. not even if you candy-coat a gold brick. she has to be found and either dug-out or plucked-out in most cases. also, desite her size, she may be quite fast if the situation warrants.

a bit over-anxious to get a Nobel prize?

damnit, i've missed out on so many good topics. by the way, the theory is that we as human races have reached the final stages of our evolution and unless something drastic happens(and happens very quick), we will not evolve further as a species.

another good example of evolution at work is the effect of pesticides on insect population. while pesticides will kill most of the insects, there will be some that show resistance to it. take it over time(several generation's ahead) survivors reproduce and you will end up with a pesticide-immune population.