Mankind still evolving

[literal visionary]

Random breeding influenced by environmental factors is the basis for evolution. We would still have an environment to react to without our meddling. I quantify evolution as change in a species over time, so it doesn't have any positive or negative qualities.

this might be your opinion but this is not what the actual theory of evolution(that states why the natural world is the way it is) states, in theory form that is,

 

[literal visionary]

if the theory of evolution has changed it must have been in the last few years anyways

 

[Endless]

We have been manipulating genomes ever since we started domesticating and breeding animals and growing and crossing crops.

That adds no 'unnatural genes' that is evolution on existing genetic variability - ie. selection from the genes already present in the animals.
Genetic engineering is when we actually manipulate the genome ourselves - like taking genes from one species and transferring them to another species.
Like the gene for green fluorescence - we can transfer this into mice and the result is fluorescent mice! Just think what will be in our reach whenever we fully understand the human body and the interaction of genes etc. Will we transfer wings to humans? Will we begin creating monsters? This is what i mean when i say we are entering a new era in evolution...

 

[zabugle]

What is a "unnatural gene" ? How is directed mutation less "natural" than random mutation? Is it unnatural to cross two species of plants? We do that all the time. How is a gene from one species less "natural" than a gene from another?

 

[Opethian]

this might be your opinion but this is not what the actual theory of evolution(that states why the natural world is the way it is) states, in theory form that is,

It's not her opinion, it's a fact.

 

[Endless]

What is a "unnatural gene" ? How is directed mutation less "natural" than random mutation? Is it unnatural to cross two species of plants? We do that all the time. How is a gene from one species less "natural" than a gene from another?

Let me take the green fluorescence gene as an example - it comes from a jellyfish, yet we can take it out and place it inside the genome of a mouse. Now this would never ever happen in nature - it's impossible, you don't get a mouse mating with a jelly fish. Hence why i used the term 'unnatural gene'. We don't use directed mutation to do this - we actually cut the gene out of the jellyfish genome and insert it into the mouse.
Hence we get a fluorescent mouse - which is 'unnatural' if you get what i mean.

It's something that could never have been done until we developed these genetic manipulation techniques. If we take the fluorescent gene from the jelly fish and insert it into the genome of a human embryo in the same way we do for mice - then we could create a fluorescent human. Of course this is banned but you think of all the other genes in life on earth - we have them at our finger tips to put into whatever creature we so wish. Hence why i asked, 'Will we begin creating monsters?'

 

[zabugle]

Let me take the green fluorescence gene as an example - it comes from a jellyfish, yet we can take it out and place it inside the genome of a mouse. Now this would never ever happen in nature - it's impossible, you don't get a mouse mating with a jelly fish. Hence why i used the term 'unnatural gene'. We don't use directed mutation to do this - we actually cut the gene out of the jellyfish genome and insert it into the mouse.
Hence we get a fluorescent mouse - which is 'unnatural' if you get what i mean."

I could have sworn both a mouse and a jellyfish were naturally occuring creatures. Since the jellyfish and the mice have a common ancestor how can it be impossible for the gene to evolve in one but not the other. The enzymes we use to splice and ligate the gene are all natural as well. I think unnatural is a poor choice of word.

It's something that could never have been done until we developed these genetic manipulation techniques. If we take the fluorescent gene from the jelly fish and insert it into the genome of a human embryo in the same way we do for mice - then we could create a fluorescent human. Of course this is banned but you think of all the other genes in life on earth - we have them at our finger tips to put into whatever creature we so wish. Hence why i asked, 'Will we begin creating monsters?'

We've been putting genes from one organism into another for over 30 years. The first transgenic mice was produced in 1974. At this point they are so common they are almost taken for granted. What do you think has changed that somehow we will be "creating monsters" now, when we haven't for the last three decades?

 

[Endless]

I could have sworn both a mouse and a jellyfish were naturally occuring creatures. Since the jellyfish and the mice have a common ancestor how can it be impossible for the gene to evolve in one but not the other. The enzymes we use to splice and ligate the gene are all natural as well. I think unnatural is a poor choice of word.

:biglaugh:Well what is natural about a fluorscent mouse? It doesn't happen in nature for a whole host of reasons. I'm not saying the fluorescent gene is an unnatural one -that is just stupid. What i am saying is that it is unnatural to find it in the genome of a mouse. Evolution has not placed it there for a reason - however we can place it there, against what natural processes have chosen. It is not natural for a mouse to be fluorescent.
You can do as much breeding as you want but you will never be able to breed a fluorescent mouse anymore than you could breed a mouse with horns.

We've been putting genes from one organism into another for over 30 years. The first transgenic mice was produced in 1974. At this point they are so common they are almost taken for granted. What do you think has changed that somehow we will be "creating monsters" now, when we haven't for the last three decades?

I never said that we will be creating monsters - but we have the potential to do so. Why do you think there are so many laws in place regarding genetic engineering?

 

[zabugle]

:biglaugh:Well what is natural about a fluorscent mouse? It doesn't happen in nature for a whole host of reasons. I'm not saying the fluorescent gene is an unnatural one -that is just stupid. What i am saying is that it is unnatural to find it in the genome of a mouse. Evolution has not placed it there for a reason - however we can place it there, against what natural processes have chosen. It is not natural for a mouse to be fluorescent.
You can do as much breeding as you want but you will never be able to breed a fluorescent mouse anymore than you could breed a mouse with horns.

Which part of the fluorescent gene is not found in mice - which nucleotide? Which part of the protein it encodes is not found in mice - which amino acid? At the molecular level what is so special about this gene that makes it unnatural in mice? If the molecules that made it up were foreign to the mouse, we wouldn't be able to express it in mice.

I never said that we will be creating monsters - but we have the potential to do so. Why do you think there are so many laws in place regarding genetic engineering?

And we have been able to for quite awhile. My question was: What is so revolutionary about right now?

 

[literal visionary]

It's not her opinion, it's a fact.

the theory as a religious belief does not think about it

lets just say that our method of testing age of objects is wrong,
if the theory of evolution would fail to disprove creationism because whose to say that all those missing link ape skulls were just deevolved humans,

whose to say we evloved from such cratures, when we could have easily deevolved into them?

 

[Sunstone]

the theory as a religious belief does not think about it

?

lets just say that our method of testing age of objects is wrong,

Hey! I like this game! Let's just say this, and let's just say that! Let's just say the earth is the center of the solar system, and let's just say it's flat. What fun!

if the theory of evolution would fail to disprove creationism because whose to say that all those missing link ape skulls were just deevolved humans,

whose to say we evloved from such cratures, when we could have easily deevolved into them?

So how come H. sapiens is not found in the strata before H. erectus?

 

[evearael]

Separate evolution from ape skulls for a moment.

Evolution describes how creature change over time.

Scientists are attempting to trace back our own species' history as we speak. This is a difficult process because fossils that survived are few and far between. The specific details of the evolution of humans is hotly contested. It is perfectly valid to challenge whether a particular fossil is an ancestor or distant cousin. This has nothing to do with the validity of evolution, just whether or not the fossil is our long lost relative. Evolution has been observed happening. Trying to discover how evolution changed species in the past is difficult because of an incomplete fossil record.

I would also like to note that evolution does not describe how life got started in the first place.

 

[literal visionary]

the theory as a religious belief does not think about it

Let me state that belief in evolution(the fact that creatures changed and adapted over time to their environment) and the theory of evolution are 2 different things.

The theory of evolution is a theory, and by way does constitute a religious belief by def. the theory of evolution originally came about to contest the original theory of creationism, and as a theory it trys to explain by the evlotution of life thro8gh time how the world came to be as we know.

Hey! I like this game! Let's just say this, and let's just say that! Let's just say the earth is the center of the solar system, and let's just say it's flat. What fun!

And just to let you know mankinds scientific techniques are highly fallible, science is in a state of constantly proving itself wrong, it has set down many impossibilities
and then has had to denounce itself and its previous impossibilities when it learns that it was previously wrong.

Why do you take everything your told by modern scientists as fact?
There is such a plethora of evidence on either side of every scientific argument,
how can you begin to imagine that we know that we are correct?

you need to open your mind

So how come H. sapiens is not found in the strata before H. erectus?

firstoa fall e

 

[evearael]

Religion and science are two different fields with different methods. There is nothing wrong with believing in God, I encourage it! It merely has no place within the realm of scientific inquiry. There is nothing wrong with liking science, I encourage it! It merely has no place within religious inquiry. I get irritated with religious groups attempting to place Genesis into science books... it is out of place because it is not a result of science. I get irritated with scientists trying to crush religious beliefs with scientific theories, because it is impossible to prove or disprove God with either religion or science... it is a matter of faith.

 

[Endless]

Which part of the fluorescent gene is not found in mice - which nucleotide? Which part of the protein it encodes is not found in mice - which amino acid? At the molecular level what is so special about this gene that makes it unnatural in mice? If the molecules that made it up were foreign to the mouse, we wouldn't be able to express it in mice.

Are you being serious . It's unnatural to mice because the sequence does not exist in mice - evolution has never brought this gene into being in mice. Therefore by cutting out the gene from the jellyfish genome and putting it into a mouse, we are bi-passing all the millions and millions of years of natural selection and random mutation that evolution states would be needed to make this gene, and we are doing it within a few hours.
Let me put it this way - the gene naturally belongs in the jellyfish - it does not naturally occur in the mouse -evolution has not chosen this to happen. We then place the gene into unnatural surroundings (the mouse genome) and by-pass the process of evolution all together. We get a fluorescent mouse which is unnatural - yeah? A fluorescent mouse never occurs in nature - this is undeniable.

And we have been able to for quite awhile. My question was: What is so revolutionary about right now?

Because the technology is becoming more available to anyone that wants to do it if they so chose to. You know the genetic laws about cloning humans -yet we get a scientist in some country claiming to have cloned the first human. As we begin to sequence the genomes of animals (we've only just done the human and even more recent is the chimp) we are discovering new genes and figuring out what those genes do. This therefore increases the library of genes which we can cut out and put into other animals and experiment with. It doesn't take a genius to work out that you get a rogue state and lax genetic laws - you are going to have people messing with nature in a way it was never suppose to be messed with.
I also only said that i believed mankind was entering a new era in evolution - we are bound to eventually find genes in other organisms which confer to them an advantage that we humans don't have but would like to have. All it takes is cutting out this gene and engineering it into the humans - we are jumping the natural process of evolution. What about the genes that confer long life? How long before we start getting oral gene therapy which replaces existing genes with these genes for long life? Again jumping the evolutionary process.
Use your imagination - there's a pile of genes that could potentially be used in humans or existing human genes that can be manipulated in ways only the evolutionary process would have done before.
I'm not going to sit here and argue this point with you anymore - it's common sense and anyone who can see the technological advances in this area in a mere decade and look two or three decades down the line will acknowledge this will be the case.

 

[Pah]

....The theory of evolution is a theory, and by way does constitute a religious belief by def. the theory of evolution originally came about to contest the original theory of creationism, and as a theory it trys to explain by the evlotution of life thro8gh time how the world came to be as we know.

And just to let you know mankinds scientific techniques are highly fallible, science is in a state of constantly proving itself wrong, it has set down many impossibilities
and then has had to denounce itself and its previous impossibilities when it learns that it was previously wrong.

You seem to know little of the foundation and application of the scientific method. It is a twisted message you tell, subsequently bought by the untutored. The message crafted by those who would do anything to impregnate God into our government institutions and scienctific arenas. It plays on half-truths to foster a no-truth genesis of life.

Why do you take everything your told by modern scientists as fact?
There is such a plethora of evidence on either side of every scientific argument,
how can you begin to imagine that we know that we are correct?

you need to open your mind....

Not an overabundance of the side of creationism - in fact an absence of any that favors itself. It (creationism) relegates itself to old, mostly corrected criticism. I would challange you to provide in a new thread or at the end of the many threads that have already asked for a scintilla of scientific evidence that supports creation or its clone, ID. Do it in another thread.

 

[literal visionary]

You seem to know little of the foundation and application of the scientific method. It is a twisted message you tell, subsequently bought by the untutored. The message crafted by those who would do anything to impregnate God into our government institutions and scienctific arenas. It plays on half-truths to foster a no-truth genesis of life

HMMM?

 

[Opethian]

Let me state that belief in evolution(the fact that creatures changed and adapted over time to their environment) and the theory of evolution are 2 different things.

The theory of evolution is a theory, and by way does constitute a religious belief by def. the theory of evolution originally came about to contest the original theory of creationism, and as a theory it trys to explain by the evlotution of life thro8gh time how the world came to be as we know

The theory of evolution does not constitute a religious belief at all. Wherever you got this from, you are sadly mistaken since the theory of evolution doesn't say anything at all about the origin of life. It is a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life as we observe it today on this earth, and nothing more. Nothing religious about that.

And just to let you know mankinds scientific techniques are highly fallible, science is in a state of constantly proving itself wrong, it has set down many impossibilities
and then has had to denounce itself and its previous impossibilities when it learns that it was previously wrong.

Show me some examples then? Sure, science is constantly improving and expanding as new things are discovered, but that's the only way we can learn new things. Yet, a huge part of science has to be pretty accurate since everything we use in this modern world depends on it. I think you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Why do you take everything your told by modern scientists as fact?
There is such a plethora of evidence on either side of every scientific argument,
how can you begin to imagine that we know that we are correct?

We don't just take everything we're told by modern scientists as a fact. We study the area of science in a critical way, we analyze and make sure we understand everything and can see for ourselves if something is correct or wrong. The problem with people like you is that you just don't understand the subject and have little or no knowledge on it, so it's easy to say that you "don't believe in it". We don't "believe" in it, we know it is correct because of scientific knowledge and logical deduction.

you need to open your mind

No I don't. You need to fill your mind, because from what I've read, it seems pretty empty.

firstoa fall e

ahem...

 

[zabugle]

Are you being serious . It's unnatural to mice because the sequence does not exist in mice - evolution has never brought this gene into being in mice. Therefore by cutting out the gene from the jellyfish genome and putting it into a mouse, we are bi-passing all the millions and millions of years of natural selection and random mutation that evolution states would be needed to make this gene, and we are doing it within a few hours.
Let me put it this way - the gene naturally belongs in the jellyfish - it does not naturally occur in the mouse -evolution has not chosen this to happen. We then place the gene into unnatural surroundings (the mouse genome) and by-pass the process of evolution all together. We get a fluorescent mouse which is unnatural - yeah? A fluorescent mouse never occurs in nature - this is undeniable. .

Yes I'm being serious. Which nucleotides of this gene don't exists in mice? Which aminio acids of the protein don't exists in mice? Just because the gene didn't evolve in mice, doesn't mean that it couldn't. Why do you keep referring to evolution making choices as if it were a being with a plan?

Because the technology is becoming more available to anyone that wants to do it if they so chose to. You know the genetic laws about cloning humans -yet we get a scientist in some country claiming to have cloned the first human. As we begin to sequence the genomes of animals (we've only just done the human and even more recent is the chimp) we are discovering new genes and figuring out what those genes do. This therefore increases the library of genes which we can cut out and put into other animals and experiment with. It doesn't take a genius to work out that you get a rogue state and lax genetic laws - you are going to have people messing with nature in a way it was never suppose to be messed with.
I also only said that i believed mankind was entering a new era in evolution - we are bound to eventually find genes in other organisms which confer to them an advantage that we humans don't have but would like to have. All it takes is cutting out this gene and engineering it into the humans - we are jumping the natural process of evolution. What about the genes that confer long life? How long before we start getting oral gene therapy which replaces existing genes with these genes for long life? Again jumping the evolutionary process.
Use your imagination - there's a pile of genes that could potentially be used in humans or existing human genes that can be manipulated in ways only the evolutionary process would have done before.
I'm not going to sit here and argue this point with you anymore - it's common sense and anyone who can see the technological advances in this area in a mere decade and look two or three decades down the line will acknowledge this will be the case.

The technology of taking a gene out of an organism and putting it into another is not new. We've been doing it for three decades. That's why I asked why you thought this time was so revolutionary. Why do you think it will be abused now, when it hasn't been before. Sequencing technology exploded in the last decade, making sequencing of full genomes possible. We are much farther along than you allude to, however. Several other species besides human are completed. Particularily ones commonly used for medical research, like mice, drosophila, and C. elegans. Knowing the sequence of a genome and knowing what genes do are two very different things. Sure it's a step forward, as is every new scientific advancement. It builds on everything that came before. Little steps. Why do you think this is such a big one? And what is your point- that we should halt all research?

 

[Super Universe]

Why do you keep referring to evolution making choices as if it were a being with a plan? ?

Maybe Endless believes there is a being with a plan behind our evolution?

95% of the United States believes there is a supreme being.

The 5% can still think that it's all one gigantic accident if they want.