How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?

[Harry Spotter]

 I believe in the theory of evolution except for one thing..Lamarck proposed mutations as the mechanism with which natural selection advanced. But this doesen't make any sense, because mutations are seldom beneficial. In fact, a mutation is nothing more than the failure of a gene to express protein synthesis correctly. Organisms that exibit signs of mutations are preterred by other members of their species for mating because depending on the mutation, basic functioning of the circulatory, immunological and even digestive processes can be compromised. In fact, the most salient feature of mutations are assymetries in the morphology of an organism, and assymetries are perceived as decreasing the sexual attractiveness of the organism to the opposite gender. It makes no sense that natural selection would advance through mutations and yet predispose us to find people of the opposite sex that exibit the greatest number of mutations as the most unattractive. There must be other mechanism that drives natural selection, because otherwise natural slection would be selecting against itself, and that makes no sense whatsoever.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Early life forms, and indeed many extant life-form, are ASEXUAL - and not because they spend all day in a basement like you. That is to say evolution (mutation and selection) was occurring long before sexual reproduction itself evolved. Sexual reproduction may have evolved to further promote genetic diversity, but is no way fundamental to the theory of evolution.

[Mars]

Where are you from Mars?

Holland

[Vince B]

Early life forms, and indeed many extant life-form, are ASEXUAL - and not because they spend all day in a basement like you. That is to say evolution (mutation and selection) was occurring long before sexual reproduction itself evolved. Sexual reproduction may have evolved to further promote genetic diversity, but is no way fundamental to the theory of evolution.

No, that is not how it works. There is no goal or purpose of evolution. Those who have advantages survive and pass on their traits. That is all. Humans need to look for meaning and purpose but the universe is devoid of any such thing except what exists in sentient beings.

[ironneck]

Ironneck your example of the giraffe was completely wrong, that is not how evolution works.

suckmymuscle, take into account that many mutations are neutral, they have no effect on survivability or reproduction. Neutral, and even harmful mutations, can piggyback ride on the success of other mutations. Mutations occur in each en every generation of each and every plant/animal and fungus, meaning a gazillion-trillion-billion-shitload mutations each year.

A mutation is beneficial when it increases reproduction chances directly (example, having stronger/more sperm) or indirectly (being stronger than other rivals, so able to be  top dog and getting more 'tail'.  By having greater survivability, chances of reproduction are increased also; according to Darwin "dead animals don't reproduce too well".

We can glean a number of basic examples form this:
-bird that lays more eggs than others of its species, reproductive advantage, this bird's dna is spread wider through the population.
-alpha-gorilla stronger than other gorillas, more intercourse, more siblings.
-lizard is better able to withstand the severe conditions of it's habitat, he lives longer and manages to spawn more siblings.

Take into account that there's many characteristics working at once: the stronger alpha male may have bad sperm: despite his increased reproduction chances it may not lead to an increased spread of his dna.

What is beneficial for reproduction does not have to be good for survivability, and vice versa.
As much as benefit, luck is a huge factor. Creationists paint a picture of nature following the ideal path from one-celled organism to homo sapiens. That is a very flawed idea, along the course of history 90% of species if not more died out. Over-specialization, bad luck or pushed off by competition, most of nature's mutations find a very early grave. What is left is a group of mutations that is proven over time, for instance sexual reproduction: it significantly increases mutations in dna, increasing adaptiveness and ultimately survivability and reproduction chances.

you fucking dumb???

i said it does not work like this

darwin said that it would be like that

[Top Dog]

People who spend their free time on a bodybuilding gossip board are not qualified to discuss this subject. Generally speaking, intelligent people are not hanging here.

[Samourai Pizzacat]

you fucking dumb???

i said it does not work like this

darwin said that it would be like that

Woah there buddy, easy does it!

My bad if I did not read your post correctly.

Edit: I re-read your post, Darwin himself did not suggest that either, he said that the giraffe with the longest neck (by sheer genetic variance) had an advantage over the others.

[Samourai Pizzacat]

People who spend their free time on a bodybuilding gossip board are not qualified to discuss this subject. Generally speaking, intelligent people are not hanging here.

You're right, but statistics do not help us much at the individual level.

[tbombz]

The only parts of America that are "smart" are the Northeast and Western coasts. We don't consider the rest to be the "smart" parts of America.

for once we agree on something.

[ironneck]

Woah there buddy, easy does it!

My bad if I did not read your post correctly.

Edit: I re-read your post, Darwin himself did not suggest that either, he said that the giraffe with the longest neck (by sheer genetic variance) had an advantage over the others.

sorry that i insulted you

it's the university stress

[Matt C]

haha wtf only 39%?

That is due to the high non-white population in the USA.

[noworries]

 I believe in the theory of evolution except for one thing..Lamarck proposed mutations as the mechanism with which natural selection advanced. But this doesen't make any sense, because mutations are seldom beneficial. In fact, a mutation is nothing more than the failure of a gene to express protein synthesis correctly. Organisms that exibit signs of mutations are preterred by other members of their species for mating because depending on the mutation, basic functioning of the circulatory, immunological and even digestive processes can be compromised. In fact, the most salient feature of mutations are assymetries in the morphology of an organism, and assymetries are perceived as decreasing the sexual attractiveness of the organism to the opposite gender. It makes no sense that natural selection would advance through mutations and yet predispose us to find people of the opposite sex that exibit the greatest number of mutations as the most unattractive. There must be other mechanism that drives natural selection, because otherwise natural slection would be selecting against itself, and that makes no sense whatsoever.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

hahahahahaha when are you going to realize what you say doesn't matter to anyone even when you cut & paste it from another site.  Getbig is alot like your real life, you don't matter to anyone.  Sorry for the reality check.  Aren't you late for the bus to school and don't forget the lunch mommy made you

[kiwiol]

People who spend their free time on a bodybuilding gossip board are not qualified to discuss this subject. Generally speaking, intelligent people are not hanging here.

Wrong. The intelligence distribution in a community of this size is no different than the one you live in. If anything, the personalities here are more interesting than the average person you meet IRL.

[Top Dog]

Wrong. The intelligent distribution in a community of this size is no different than the one you live in. If anything, the personalities here are more interesting than the average person you meet IRL.

I strongly disagree with your opinion but I do respect it. I've lurked around here long enough to get a good feel and although there are some exceptions including the likes of yourself and 240, the rule is certainly the likes of Johnnynoname, Swede, and tbombz.

[DK II]

I am really flipped at the movie called "Creation" is banned because of only 39% of american citizen are believing in evolution theory.
How about you guys? Especialy American Getbigers.

americans = dumb.

[lovemonkey]

americans = dumb.

What I've realized is that americans most certainly have the brainpower, it is their culture/mindset that sometimes prevents them from using it.

[tbombz]

americans = dumb.

sorry but modern republicans = dumb... not americans as a whole... unfortunately they represent a large % of our population...

[The Master]

sorry but modern republicans = dumb... not americans as a whole... unfortunately they represent a large % of our population...

Your main problems = the low IQ groups.

[Tapeworm]

Your main problems = the low IQ groups.

And having to separate paper, plastic, and different colors of glass.  You know someone out there is putting green glass in the brown glass bin just to be an asshole.

[suckmymuscle]

Huh? I said I agree with you, evolution via beneficial mutations doesnt make sense, brainiac.

  Ok, so what is the mechanism that drive3s evolution, Einstein? You said this has been proven wrong for 100 years. From what I understand, mutations are still believed my many evolutionary biologists to be the driving force in evolution.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[The_Punisher]

why are there so many unrelated topics in this G/O boards?

[suckmymuscle]

Ironneck your example of the giraffe was completely wrong, that is not how evolution works.

suckmymuscle, take into account that many mutations are neutral, they have no effect on survivability or reproduction. Neutral, and even harmful mutations, can piggyback ride on the success of other mutations. Mutations occur in each en every generation of each and every plant/animal and fungus, meaning a gazillion-trillion-billion-shitload mutations each year.

A mutation is beneficial when it increases reproduction chances directly (example, having stronger/more sperm) or indirectly (being stronger than other rivals, so able to be  top dog and getting more 'tail'.  By having greater survivability, chances of reproduction are increased also; according to Darwin "dead animals don't reproduce too well".

We can glean a number of basic examples form this:
-bird that lays more eggs than others of its species, reproductive advantage, this bird's dna is spread wider through the population.
-alpha-gorilla stronger than other gorillas, more intercourse, more siblings.
-lizard is better able to withstand the severe conditions of it's habitat, he lives longer and manages to spawn more siblings.

Take into account that there's many characteristics working at once: the stronger alpha male may have bad sperm: despite his increased reproduction chances it may not lead to an increased spread of his dna.

What is beneficial for reproduction does not have to be good for survivability, and vice versa.
As much as benefit, luck is a huge factor. Creationists paint a picture of nature following the ideal path from one-celled organism to homo sapiens. That is a very flawed idea, along the course of history 90% of species if not more died out. Over-specialization, bad luck or pushed off by competition, most of nature's mutations find a very early grave. What is left is a group of mutations that is proven over time, for instance sexual reproduction: it significantly increases mutations in dna, increasing adaptiveness and ultimately survivability and reproduction chances.

  You missed the point completely. It doesen't matter whether mutations are beneficial, neutral or detrminental, but that mutatations being the mechanism that drives natural selection makes no sense because the DNA molecule avoids mutations at all costs. A mutation only occurs when a gene expresses itself incorrectly, resulting in a new protein being synthesized than would otherwise be the case. So you are basically saying that what drives evolution are flaws in gene expression that the DNA tries to avoid at all costs? My point is that, since adapatations to the challenges of the natural environment are necessary for the DNA to survive but that the DNA does not encourage mutations, then there must be another mechanism that drives evolution, otherwise the DNA would encourage mutations, by causing as many errors in gene expression as possible and by making living organisms seek mates with the highest amounts of assymetries possible, which is the opposite of what happens. Understand now?

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

hahahahahaha when are you going to realize what you say doesn't matter to anyone even when you cut & paste it from another site.  Getbig is alot like your real life, you don't matter to anyone.  Sorry for the reality check.  Aren't you late for the bus to school and don't forget the lunch mommy made you

  Jealously reeks from your post. You are not as intelligent as me and you know it, and it drives you insane. Let's remind everyone of what you look like, so it can be clear why you're so bitter:

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Blücher]

 Ok, so what is the mechanism that drive3s evolution, Einstein? You said this has been proven wrong for 100 years. From what I understand, mutations are still believed my many evolutionary biologists to be the driving force in evolution.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

You must be high or something, I never said mutations have been proven wrong ,I was refering to the gills on human fetuses.
I agreed with you that mutation driving evolution doesnt make sense.

[mass 04]

sorry but modern republicans = dumb... not americans as a whole... unfortunately they represent a large % of our population...

[The Luke]

  You missed the point completely. It doesen't matter whether mutations are beneficial, neutral or detrminental, but that mutatations being the mechanism that drives natural selection makes no sense because the DNA molecule avoids mutations at all costs. A mutation only occurs when a gene expresses itself incorrectly, resulting in a new protein being synthesized than would otherwise be the case. So you are basically saying that what drives evolution are flaws in gene expression that the DNA tries to avoid at all costs? My point is that, since adapatations to the challenges of the natural environment are necessary for the DNA to survive but that the DNA does not encourage mutations, then there must be another mechanism that drives evolution, otherwise the DNA would encourage mutations, by causing as many errors in gene expression as possible and by making living organisms seek mates with the highest amounts of assymetries possible, which is the opposite of what happens. Understand now?

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Sucky,


Your post is what scientists refer to as "NOT EVEN WRONG".

You need to understand the process before you critique some imagied flaw in the theory. Mutation is NOT always detrimental to an organism, nor is it the only method of adaption.

Sexual reproduction introduces huge VARIATIONS in the expression of genes (the genotype) in the phenotype (the body). Perhaps if you think in terms of variation instead of your mistaken concept of mutation you might better grasp the process.

Your argument that DNA avoids mutation "at all costs" is simply wrong, and countered with a singe word: cancer.


I think you have coflated one of the basic MECHANISMS of evolution (mutation) with the PROCESS itself.

Variation among a breeding species/population is caused by:
-mutations (deletions, transpositions, reversals, insertions of genes and gene groups)
-sexual blending of genes

Evolution itself is caused by:
-adaptive advatage
-reproductive advantage
-sexual selection
-population filtering (immunity; adaptability; "fitness" or aptness)
-species radiation


Believe me when I tell you that you misuderstand the basics sufficiently that you won't comprehend why you are mistaken... not without further study.


The Luke