HedgeHog

I am so s**k of the L*****t/Liberal postings on this forum, I thought I'd try something new, run it up the f**gpole and see how it flies, so to speak.

(I've posted a similar topic on "Galt's Gulch Online"):

Yesterday, I was searching the Internet for possible answers to why the mythology of the ancient Sumerians was, in one very important respect, different from the mythology of ancient Egypt.

One thing led to another, and I came across something I had never known before: C********e 2.
We are told that the DNA of humans and chimps are 98. something % alike; we are not told that the haploid number of c********es in the genus Homo is one less than in other primates.

Apparently there was a random "mutation"---and it probably occurred in more than one individual---that caused the fusion of two c********es, resulting in the second largest c********e in the cell structure of hominids.

Some implications of this occurrence are:

1. It gives credence to the "cladogenesis" theory of evolution: "Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually t***sforming into another."--Wikipedia

2. An a******lity associated with C********e 2 is synesthesia: "a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway." From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthe...

3. Apply cladogenesis to rampant and legal a******n, and you have another reason a******n is immoral.

HedgeHog

Conservatives are still letting L*****t/Liberals drive the agenda. You need to ignore them. But let them know you are waiting.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Well HH, you have made quite a leap on this one. I guess you are saying that a******n is interfering with one form of speciation which occurs in evolution, thus preventing humans from progressing along the evolutionary pathway, so to speak. Or do I have that one wrong??

Your reference to cladogenesis is interesting as well. I'm not sure one would refer to a mutation which combined two c********es into one as the initiating event of speciation from chimp to man. I'll have to read up on that. Typically in cladogenesis there is a separation event with portions of two populations ending up in sufficiently different environments that over time, as other mutations occur giving each population selective advantage in their environment, the two populations become sufficiently different as to prevent reproduction. Certainly a chimp with its 24 haploid c********es would have difficulty reproducing with a human and their 23. But, given the nature of living things and such seemingly impossible happenings which have been observed in the world of genetics, I'm betting there are example of organisms with different numbers of c********es being able to reproduce.

In studying the fossil record one encounters a form of speciation which might or might not be different known as, I think, anagenesis??? Can't remember. Point being both are difficult to argue against while at the same time difficult to prove.

Thus, I don't really know what my point was, but I think you certainly have your brainstorming hat on!

HedgeHog

Good morning, nwtk.

I thought I was showing that a******n could interfere with ANY attempt at providing variation within, or without, species.
That random and viable mutations within species would be less likely to occur where there is widespread and sanctioned a******n, and that any type of evolution to a higher, or other, forms, would also be less likely to occur. But a unique DNA structure for individuals in the species, is not necessarily dependent on mutation. The sexual component, as well as occurrences in DNA replication, adds individual variety to the "species." Also, you can have random mutations that would not cause speciation, (as you put it), but uniqueness.

I have to go back to the earthworm on this. I asked if individual earthworms could be considered to be "unique", and the Answer was, any deviation from the original DNA structure that makes an earthworm an earthworm, would probably result in speciation. Humans are not earthworms. I was well schooled in THAT.

I don't know that much about cladogenesis, only that Dawkins brought up, to me, that evolution is not always gradual, or at least that some evolutionists think it is more punctuated than gradual, which, again, makes the case for the immorality of a******n.

This is what I found on Wikipedia:

Cladogenesis is an evolutionary splitting event where a parent species splits into two distinct species, forming a clade.

Then it went to say it "usually" occurs when... Well, why not make that leap? For one thing, there can not be change in a species, or speciation, where there is no mutation in DNA or gene structure. So it has to happen somewhere along the line.

So what I'm saying, is, perhaps certain mutations would, or could, occur in spite of the wide use of a******n, but it would take longer.

Like Joan of Arc. Ask me about that "Leap".

HedgeHog

It was when I realized that there was no way the fusion of two c********es could have happened gradually, that I made that "leap" as you called it.

HedgeHog

I'm wondering if evolutionists should start distinguishing between variety, uniqueness, and speciation, as it occurs at different stages of evolution. I think there's some confusion there. I'm confused, anyway.

It seems that at some point, depending on the life form itself, there is enough of a significant difference in DNA coding, or structure, or wh**ever, that a new species, one not able to breed, that is, sexually reproduce, with others in the species, is formed. And it would depend on the evolutionary scale of the life form.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

I certainly agree with you. Mass a******n certainly removes a lot of genetic potential for uniqueness from the gene pool. I see your point.

HedgeHog

One reason it is so horrifyingly selfish.

See the post I just made.

Is this your area of expertise, nwtk?

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

They do, but eventually they come back to mutations as the ultimate raw material for evolutionary changes needed to diverge populations into different species. But certainly, during meiosis, given the shuffling of genetic materials during pairing of homologous c********es and crossover, there is enough genetic changes made to at least cause us to be virtually unique among our own species.

HedgeHog

AND leads to stagnation. Of the species and the culture.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

It is one of my areas but I don't consider myself an expert any longer. I'm fairly well versed in the basics, however.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

It is such an assault upon the psyche that I feel it's much more damaging to the culture than the species.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Stagnation and degeneration of the culture, for sure. The culture becomes a moral wasteland in the light of free lance a******ns for the sake of ridding oneself of basic biological and societal responsibility.

HedgeHog

But it would be different for different species. The earthworm (and earthworms can be hermaphrodites, I just remembered)---a single mutation of a single gene might result in an individual earthworm unable to reproduce sexually with another earthworm. But for humans, you could possibly have random mutations, resulting in "uniqueness" that would still enable the individual to interbreed with other humans. THAT was my point.

Also, during DNA replication (meiosis), there is more chance for something to happen, either adverse, or beneficial. The DNA structure is more vulnerable.

HedgeHog

I thought of two more things:

When you get an x-ray, the lead apron they encase you in, is simply that: to protect the DNA as it undergoes replication, when its structure is most vulnerable to outside interference.

I forgot the other one. Well, it will come back to me.