the theory of badgershow we evolved from them etc.
(
Haku Orange Whip? Orange Whip? Three Orange Whips.,
Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:11,
archived)
I'm not totally up to datebut I think there are a variety of molecular/biological theories clumped together as non-darwinian evolution. I don't think Darwinian evolution has been completely discredited, just that scientists are coming to the realisation that it is either far too simplistic or cannot possibly account for the diversity of life, even given the massive timescales, that perhaps Darwinian evolution is just a small part of what can happen.
(
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:20,
archived)
it's a 19th century theory <-(important bit) based upon observation and deductionand for some reason people equate evolution with making a better/more complicated/clever species
which isn't what it's about
but "I don't know" does not mean "god did it", if we knew everything we'd be gods ourselves, and we aren't :)
(which isn't what it's about
but "I don't know" does not mean "god did it", if we knew everything we'd be gods ourselves, and we aren't :)
discomeats This canoe,
Thu 14 Jun 2007, 11:33,
archived)
I think...I think you're confusing the work of actual scientists with supporters of intelligent design here, personally.
(,
Thu 14 Jun 2007, 12:16,
archived)
You sir...... are talking out your arse I'm afraid. With the advent of genetics and particularly molecular genetics the theories expoused by Darwin have becaome more refined and extended, but there are certainly no movemements in the scientific community to reject them, not in the slightest. Indeed the influence of our understanding of evolution on the progress of modern molecular biology is something which is often understated.
For example, scientists regularly use our understanding of evolution in an attempt to identify elements of importance within the genetic code. By realising that selection will restrict changes on regions of function you may look to identify possible areas with functional significance. This works. But perhaps more importantly in areas where you may predict rapid evolution, such as in the immune system, these results are actualy born out in the DNA sequence.
Thats not to mention the fact that evolution can be a bit of a bastard in the day to day life of a scientist. I've got mutant yeast which die at high temperatures, this is a good thing. The only problem is that the bastards keep gaining mutations, mainly as these tend to co-incide with stronger growth phenotypes at normal temperatures. As a result I end up wasting ages because I have to go back to the original stocks to recover the temperature sensitive phenotype.
And what about anti-biotic resistance, heavy metal tolerance appearing in plants, and speciation events obserbved in human lifespans (in plants.)
(,
Thu 14 Jun 2007, 22:31,
archived)
For example, scientists regularly use our understanding of evolution in an attempt to identify elements of importance within the genetic code. By realising that selection will restrict changes on regions of function you may look to identify possible areas with functional significance. This works. But perhaps more importantly in areas where you may predict rapid evolution, such as in the immune system, these results are actualy born out in the DNA sequence.
Thats not to mention the fact that evolution can be a bit of a bastard in the day to day life of a scientist. I've got mutant yeast which die at high temperatures, this is a good thing. The only problem is that the bastards keep gaining mutations, mainly as these tend to co-incide with stronger growth phenotypes at normal temperatures. As a result I end up wasting ages because I have to go back to the original stocks to recover the temperature sensitive phenotype.
And what about anti-biotic resistance, heavy metal tolerance appearing in plants, and speciation events obserbved in human lifespans (in plants.)