An Interesting Intellectual puzzle...

[Cagey]

So I think it's genius how they used blood from insects stuck in amber for Jurassic park but a lot of dinosaur bones we find are still part bone and have dino dna right there. Kinda ironic right? So hey, maybe we could pull of Jurassic Park.  :icon_jokercolor:

I suspect there's a lot more of that sort of thing going on with a lot more success than anybody is willing to admit out loud. The hue and cry that would be raised would be deafening. Not that anybody is growing dinosaurs in secret labs, but the whole "cloning" thing in general. But, that could be the conspiracy theorist in me talking, too <grin>

 

[Jusatele]

frogs, fish, hollywood oh my.

 

[erogenousjones17]

Watching Jurassic Park at the drive-in with my parents was the highlight of my childhood. Dinosaurs are so awesome. However, it's not exactly realistic. The whole "filling in the gaps with frog DNA" thing is just, well, impossible. But hey, we can dream, can't we?

 

[B3Guy]

not gonna lie . . . going to the zoo in 2100 and seeing live wooly mammoths would be legit. just sayin'.

 

[Cagey]

I don't care if I ever see a Woolly Mammoth. They're just the hippie version of Elephants, really. All long-haired and skanky, with deformed teeth and such. But a cage full of Raptors? Now, that would be something! Tease 'em until they're just seething with fury and ready to attack ragged scrap metal, then release a bunch of pit bulls and politicians into their cage to thin the population of those useless things out. People would pay serious money to see that <grin>

Of course, then those dingbats from PETA would get involved, and the poor raptors would end up having to live on beef-flavored cereal. Hey! Maybe we could mix some PETA people in with the lawyers! What would be wrong with that?

 

[B3Guy]

nothing, Cagey, absolutely nothing.

 

[Jusatele]

why not just start with PETA people and then move to the lawyers, I mean lesser of 2 evils right?

 

[MikeW]

There is a misconception that evolution is constantly occurring. I think that comes from a misunderstanding of the different types of evolution that were originally posited by Msrs Darwin and Lamarck. Lamarck's theory was based on the adaptation of a species to an environmental niche based on individual experiences. The classic example of Lamarckian evolution is the giraffe. Mr. Lamarck theorized that giraffes had acquired longer and longer necks through time due to the efforts of ancestors. In other words, my neck is longer than my parent's necks due to their continual stretching to reach higher leaves during feeding.

Mr. Darwin's theory was based on the concept of natural selection, quite a different perspective from Lamarck's. Natural selection is the ability of a species to adapt to changes to it's environment due to inherent individual differences. As the environment changed, only indivuduals that could adapt live in the changed environment would survive. He actually didn't have any idea of how the mechanism of natural selection worked. It would be up to Gregor Mendel to fill in those gaps with his pea plant experiements. We know now know how individual traits are acquired through genetics and how the individual organisms genetics influence it's ability to survive in a given ecological niche.

There are always wide variations in the genetic codes of a species. That's how we wind up with a Steven Hawking, a Jimi Hendirx, or a Gweneth Paltrow. But the rate at which a species differentiates itself from other species, or other groups of the same species is not constant. What's missing are the variations in environment to force a species to adapt.Current thinking is that evolution only occurs during periods where there are environmental niches that can be filled by a new species, and those niches are filled within a few generations. So we wouldn't see evolution occurring around us now becuase there are no environmental niches to be filled so there is no advantage to be gained by a species evolving into a new environmental role.

Throw a big rock at Earth and knock a couple hunderd species out of existence and would you see evoution in action? You betcha! We have perfect examples of that occurring in the fossil record at the KT boundary with the extinction of the dinosaurs and the rise of the mammals.

The point of all this rambling is that we can see natual selection going on around us all the time. The moths in Great Britian are a good example of that. So we know the mechanism works, we just haven't seen any examples of true evolution since there haven't been vacant ecological niches for new species to populate in a few eons. Global warming anyone?

Just a few random thoughts. Thanks for listening. We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Cagey]

Well, I forgot to list Marketing Weenies, too. Tough to prioritize.

 

[Jusatele]

Well, I forgot to list Marketing Weenies, too. Tough to prioritize.

then we forgot cable company service guys

 

[Jusatele]

MikeW, interesting thought line.
And I want to take one point and expand on it even though I feel that it is not in agreement totally with what you stated.
First let me say, I think extinction is the result of evolution, or a lack of it. Also that environmental change can be not just temperature but invasion of other species.
So now let us Look at Hawaii, and the invasion of introduced species and what they are doing to the Islands.
Here we have the perfect laboratory to study evolution as it is happening in front of us We are watching an environment go into chaos as these species take over and will see nature develop a way to deal with such. I think many a species will go either into secluded areas, or extinct, others will raise to the top,some will die off because of their success, others their failures. But if you look at whatever happens, even if the islands get denuded, what survives or what comes in to take over, will be the result of how it adapted to the changes around it or that it caused. Evolution is all around us, a change of based diet and hunting techniques is a form of evolution.
We could do a case study of Yellowstone and the loss of the wolf and the reintroduction of the wolf and how the Aspen forest were effected. that was human forced, then look at the high altitude pine forest and the advance of the bark beetle caused by climate change. Not human caused. Each allowed plants to leave an area as the Aspens were being overgrazed by the Elk but now are coming back on. And as they left other species took the area over, but once the Aspen was allowed to take over again it has. A brief evolution of an area. The loss of the pine forest will allow another species to take over the area until we again move into a time when we start to swing back into global cooling. as the pendulum will.

 

[Cagey]

Oh, yeah. And cellphone company execs. Damn. More I think about it, the longer the list gets.

Every day of my life forces me to add to
the list of people who can kiss my ass!​

 

[Jusatele]

customer service representatives

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Watching Jurassic Park at the drive-in with my parents was the highlight of my childhood. Dinosaurs are so awesome. However, it's not exactly realistic. The whole "filling in the gaps with frog DNA" thing is just, well, impossible. But hey, we can dream, can't we?

You guys are missing the point.  By posting, I'm not saying cloning dinosaurs is realistic or splicing frog DNA is even possible.  I was just citing that frogs can change sexes to suit their environment and it was even latched onto by Hollywood.

 

[Jusatele]

We got it. we are just ingrossed in the subject. I loved your post as it reinforced mine

however no one answered weather that is more advanced than us or less, and why do we feel we are the most advanced?

 

[B3Guy]

Watching Jurassic Park at the drive-in with my parents was the highlight of my childhood. Dinosaurs are so awesome. However, it's not exactly realistic. The whole "filling in the gaps with frog DNA" thing is just, well, impossible. But hey, we can dream, can't we?

You guys are missing the point.  By posting, I'm not saying cloning dinosaurs is realistic or splicing frog DNA is even possible.  I was just citing that frogs can change sexes to suit their environment and it was even latched onto by Hollywood.

I know . . . but it would be AWESOME!

 

[Cagey]

Speaking of missing points, I'm not sure everyone is considering the time spans involved. Species aren't mutated or created over a few generations. It can take many thousands or even millions of years. Sometimes it happens faster than that, but generally speaking, it's a very long-term process. Rabbits don't turn into cats in a thousand years. But in a million? Maybe. Plus, you have to consider the number of targets of opportunity. The farther up the food chain you go, the slower things reproduce, either in time or quantity. Insects often produce thousands of offspring per mating cycle, which is frequent. Elephants very rarely produce more than one, and only a few times per lifetime. So, a mutated insect has myriad opportunities to reproduce and mutate and pass on new genes, while an elephant's chances are very limited.

 

[hachikid]

This is tiresome stuff.

Have you ever HAD sex?  I beg to differ!

Ducking and running (and actually thinking about the substance of your post before responding more seriously),

Bagman

if you haven't broken a sweat or are sore as hell the next morning, you're simply not doing it right..... ^_^

 

[elfro89]

There is a misconception that evolution is constantly occurring. I think that comes from a misunderstanding of the different types of evolution that were originally posited by Msrs Darwin and Lamarck. Lamarck's theory was based on the adaptation of a species to an environmental niche based on individual experiences. The classic example of Lamarckian evolution is the giraffe. Mr. Lamarck theorized that giraffes had acquired longer and longer necks through time due to the efforts of ancestors. In other words, my neck is longer than my parent's necks due to their continual stretching to reach higher leaves during feeding.

Mr. Darwin's theory was based on the concept of natural selection, quite a different perspective from Lamarck's. Natural selection is the ability of a species to adapt to changes to it's environment due to inherent individual differences. As the environment changed, only indivuduals that could adapt live in the changed environment would survive. He actually didn't have any idea of how the mechanism of natural selection worked. It would be up to Gregor Mendel to fill in those gaps with his pea plant experiements. We know now know how individual traits are acquired through genetics and how the individual organisms genetics influence it's ability to survive in a given ecological niche.

There are always wide variations in the genetic codes of a species. That's how we wind up with a Steven Hawking, a Jimi Hendirx, or a Gweneth Paltrow. But the rate at which a species differentiates itself from other species, or other groups of the same species is not constant. What's missing are the variations in environment to force a species to adapt.Current thinking is that evolution only occurs during periods where there are environmental niches that can be filled by a new species, and those niches are filled within a few generations. So we wouldn't see evolution occurring around us now becuase there are no environmental niches to be filled so there is no advantage to be gained by a species evolving into a new environmental role.

Throw a big rock at Earth and knock a couple hunderd species out of existence and would you see evoution in action? You betcha! We have perfect examples of that occurring in the fossil record at the KT boundary with the extinction of the dinosaurs and the rise of the mammals.

The point of all this rambling is that we can see natual selection going on around us all the time. The moths in Great Britian are a good example of that. So we know the mechanism works, we just haven't seen any examples of true evolution since there haven't been vacant ecological niches for new species to populate in a few eons. Global warming anyone?

Just a few random thoughts. Thanks for listening. We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming...

I really like this idea. But the reason Lamarck's theory seems a bit dodgy is this, I have a friend who is so tight with their money that they don't even bother putting any heating on during the winter. their house is ALWAYS freezing, so much so that condensation appears whenever you breath. Shouldn't her children develop a new coat of hair or something?

not to offend anyone, but would this be genetic mutation, or evolution? aparently he was the fourth generation in his family to be born like this.

 

[elfro89]

Speaking of missing points, I'm not sure everyone is considering the time spans involved. Species aren't mutated or created over a few generations. It can take many thousands or even millions of years. Sometimes it happens faster than that, but generally speaking, it's a very long-term process. Rabbits don't turn into cats in a thousand years. But in a million? Maybe. Plus, you have to consider the number of targets of opportunity. The farther up the food chain you go, the slower things reproduce, either in time or quantity. Insects often produce thousands of offspring per mating cycle, which is frequent. Elephants very rarely produce more than one, and only a few times per lifetime. So, a mutated insect has myriad opportunities to reproduce and mutate and pass on new genes, while an elephant's chances are very limited.

I think people understand this, but there has to be a point where the offspring is so radically different that they can be labelled as a new species. Changes within a species has pretty much already been seen, with that headlice test, scientists where able to force a species to change and adapt. Evolution into a new species has yet to be seen or proven, which is where the theory falls a bit short. Im sure there is really good evidence to support it but that fundamental question is a big one...

donkey's and horses can mate to form mules. which is strange because they are 2 different species, so is it entirely possible for any human ancestors to have had similar types of situations? (bit of a taboo subject) But to me, thats the only way in my mind a new species could have been born that was so radically different from its parents to be labelled as a new species, keeping in mind mules are infertile.