Skippy Posted August 5, 2005 Report Share Posted August 5, 2005 Skippy, this isn't the place to disscuss what u are....go to the loung and read my "recent debate thread.OP5What are you talking about? :) The title of this thread is "Get it Straight." One Would think this IS the thread where correcting errant comments is allowed. Sorry :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenMind5 Posted August 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2005 Skippy, The topic of this thread IS get it straight. But what u are talking about does nto belong in this THREAD! It belongs in another thread called, "Recent Debate" which you can find in the loung. Now if you wish to con. Posting in this thread...please keep it on topic. *A frustrated*Op5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted August 5, 2005 Report Share Posted August 5, 2005 Skippy, old buddy old pal: You are flying off the handle because of me saying if you need someone to build a bridge, to call a scientist. You have refuted me and said quite rightly that the scientists are designers and not builders. I stand pettily corrected. However, even if I'm wrong, I think a reasonable person in his or her right mind, would have understood what I was trying to convey in my post. So - in short, get over it. Subtlety comes at a price. Understanding it, is not cheap either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenMind5 Posted August 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 Boerseun...u are only fueling this off topic-ness. The topic is CHem. evoultion! STAY ON IT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted August 6, 2005 Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 OK, OpenMind5. I get the idea that you’re interested in a discussion of how organisms made of highly organized, highly differentiated cells, such as fish, birds and mammals, including H. Sapiens, came to be as they presently are. I appreciate you efforts to keep this thread on-topic, and will try to respond in kind. I don’t have a firm grasp of your position, but infer from some of your posts that you believe in either evolution, or “devolution” – that is, that the present species have not always been as they are, but are either becoming gradually more organized, or less. I’m guessing you subscribe to the mainstream theory of cellular genetics, believing that the genome encoded in cells’ nuclear DNA contains all or most of the information used to build the complex collection of cells that is the organism. Please inform me if I’ve guessed wrong. My take, gleaned from reading popular biological literature – I’m a mathematician by training and a computer programmer by occupation, with only a non-specialist’s education in the biological sciences – is described in part by this short essay by Lyn Margulis. In short,… Cilia were once free-agents but they became an integral part of all animal cells ..A bit more explanation is required beyond the Margulis piece. Specifically, I suspect that colonies of roughly circular bacteria entered into symbioses with more motile, spirochete-form bacteria, and perhaps other special-form microorganisms, giving rise to the first highly differentiated animal tissues. In short, I suspect that all of the highly-specialized cell forms in advanced organisms – sensory cilia, neural tissue, mitochondria – had their origins in independent, unusually-formed microorganisms. Further, I suspect that the process is slowly ongoing, that genetic information from foreign bacteria and viruses that regularly insert themselves into our DNA genome continue to introduce potentially useful traits. Like planetary accretion disks, large, advanced organisms collect and incorporate smaller, simpler organisms. Give a bunch of 10-year-olds some Lego Technics/Mindstorm pieces, and observe how they construct a large, complicated machine. The most successful kids often do so by assembling arrays of small assemblies, playing with them to see which ones work well and work well together, then fusing them together into the final machine. I believe that nature plays in a similar way, and that we and our fellow biological organisms are the result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenMind5 Posted August 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 CraigD,It just seems that alot of post don't quite look at this period to well. (the ones i have read) They always fall onto beliefs and that doesn't belong here. I have many opions, the idea I was trying to get across was that maybe it was all a mistake. We all could be the result of a small error in what was the first orgaisms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted August 6, 2005 Report Share Posted August 6, 2005 We all could be the result of a small error in what was the first orgaisms.That's indeed what we are. Evolution is the overall result of not only DNA-combining, but also errors in DNA duplication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.