DNA and evolutionary speaking
127315
The very oldest species on Earth are the cyanobacteria, which seem to have \nbeen around virtually unchanged for nearly 4 billion years. This is based \non fossils of that age that have been compared under high-powered \nmicroscopes to existing species of these bacteria. Other bacteria that \nare about as old are the archaea, which thrive in acidic, high- \ntemperature, or high-radiation environments. \n\nAnother ancient organisms are the stromatolites, mounds of algae and \nbacteria that today grow in the Bahamas, Shark's Bay Australia, and a few \nother limited environments. They have been around, also largely \nunchanged, for over 3 billion years and at one time were the Earth's \ndominant form of life. \n\nOn the animal side of things, the brachiopod Lingula is probably the \noldest, having existed nearly unchanged for over 500 million years, and \nthe horseshoe crab (limulus) has been on the planet for several hundred \nmillion years, too. Since the average "lifespan" of a species is only a \nfew million years, having such ancient species around is very impressive. \n\nA good book about the earliest life is "Cradle of Life" by J. William \nSchopf. He is one of the premier scientists doing this sort of research. \nAt a more advanced level, he has edited two scientific books, "Earth's \nEarliest Biosphere" and "The Proterozoic Biosphere", which should be in If you are a "separator" (I’m not sure if that is the correct word), instead of a “grouper” there are a LOT of things you could see as very young species. For instance, marine iguanas (are they called green iguanas?) are very different depending on what island they live on. Some people see those as separate species so there are some that are still in the process of adapting to changes that are seen to be becoming a new species. Also, a lot of migrating birds can reproduce with different species to form new species that are not barren like mules or anything like that, they can become their own species I guess. But I think a grouper would say they are all the same species if they can interbreed and have offspring that can reproduce. Like, all green iguanas are one species.
498139
Though you will ignore the answer, I'll try anyway.  \n\nYour question, with explanation was a classic straw man, so I'll answer your question.\n\nI do not support ID as per se, but, all they are saying is the following:\n\nStep 1:  dna exists.\nStep 2:  later, new dna exists which could not have been eluciadated from existing dna, because there is unquestionably new and unique information in this new dna, which did not exist before.\nStep 3:  how did it happen?  \nStep 4:  it either happened by some still unknown natural or biological mechanism, or it was caused, created.\nStep 5: the natural or biological mechanism seems unlikely as the cause for strictly reasonable and logical reasons.  However, if it could be discovered, it would be one of the most important discoveries ever, and would be communicated as such.  This is still one of the mysteries in biology.  \nStep 6:  new information is not created by natural and random processes.  This just does not occur in nature.  Based on experience and logic.  \nStep 7:  based on the above, it seems that design is involved.\n\nThis is not hard logic.  The point is that you have closed your mind to the issues the ID people are trying to consider, and ID people are fully engaged in science.  What happens if you are wrong?\n\nBasically, ID does not say design is perfect, however, it could very well be optimal, and that takes intelligence, and then it is not a flaw.  ID people have answered your question many times.  Many you need to do some reading.  I cannot say the retina is shoddely wired.  Your remark was a rhetorical and opinionated remark.\n\nNot trying to give you a hard time.  Just the facts.\n\nEdit:  Anything that is proven by science, I agree with.  Duplication is well known.  I hope I was clear.  The issue is:  Here is dna without a certain new function, like a lung, or kidney, or brain, or eye, or skin, of bone, or hair, of tear duct, or immune response, etc.  Later, a 100 lines, or millions of lines of new dna exist with this code.  Duplication is not the mechanism, for the function did not exist, and requires some pretty profound new engineering to create.  The unanswered question is:  how did it happen?  Randomness cannot be part of the solution, since the improbabilities are far too great.  \n\nCan this question be answered, or is it still open?  The answer I usually get is, well just because we do not know, does not mean we should accept the possibility of a creator.  I say, you should consider both, until we have an answer.  You may lean one way or the other, but both are still possibilities.  \n\nThe most knowledgeable scientists agree for example, in cosmology, the closer we get to the beginning of the universe, the more the questions become philosophical and theological.  You are discounting a vital side of the story.
266219
EEEEH. I'm not really good with this mumbojumbo stuff but here is a site on genotypes and stuff. -> http://janis7hepc.com/Genotypes.htm <-
39503
Okay i never heard of the law of DNA but to answer the question.  If the condition of hair, straght or curly, is defined by a single gene, than there are two types.  The is a straight gene and a curly gene.  So everyone has two copies of the gene.  One from mom and one from dad.  So if mom gives a curly gene, and dad gives straight, which one will it be?  Well that is described by the law of domninance.  One gene will be stronger than the other.  One allele will out shine the other.  So you need to find out, which gene is dominant and which is recessive.  thats your answer
35264
i'm going to say no. dna has evolved in organisms over millions of millions of years on this planet to be just the way it is today. viruses are random strands of this dna or rna (viruses are not alive). the chances that a similar genetic material has developed elsewhere in this universe is extremely thin, and on top of that, there would be a slim chance of it somehow reaching our earth.
528539
It's a key element in evolution, and comes about through modifications of an organism's DNA via radiation, chemical poisoning, or simple mischance in cell replication.  The daugther organism can inherit the modified DNA, and it may - or may not - give some advantage toward survival and subsequent reproduction.
122383
the difference in DNA between humans is SUPER tiny, like in the hundreths of a percent different.  humans are approximately .001% different
521846
Hi Naveen,\nThat question is interesting, and requires some basic knowledge of evolutionary genetics to answer.\nI shall try  to make this simple:\n\nThe basic unit of life according to the latest views, is the gene. This is bcoz Gene or the genetic material, whether it be RNA or DNA or any other non carbon material for that matter,is the one that posess the most funbamental quality of life- that is to "make a replica of itself and thereby immortalise its own kind" . \nEarlier, the ability to respire, the ability to grow in size, the ability to store and handle or transform energy and the ability to interact with the environment were all considered as basic and essential qualities of life. Now the view has changed and what i mentioned earlier holds true.\n        The genetic material as i told you has only one "aim"and that is procreation! All the interactions we see among living organisms around us is a result of the Genetic Material(gene) trying to create a copy of it successfully and make it survive.  "The cell is a way of the gene to make another gene" as Richard Dawkins told once. And when the cell becomes useless on its own to help genes procreate, the gene finds ways to make cells co-operate. Thats how multicellular organisms evolved. \n\nThis evolution was very very gradual, i need not stress upon that part. In this view of the living world, Animals, or for that matter Humans are the pinnacle of the gene's experiment for cooperation! Not only does each cell in an animal body work in close harmony with its neighbours, the organism(animal or human) as a whole works and lives in total harmony with others of the same group.\n         The mechanism of this cooperation is seen in pack-hunting strategies of many social animals like jackal, hyenas, wolves, lions, or the colony of ants , termites ,bees or wasps, or the farmlands of humans or in a modern factory..! This genetic cooperation has evolved innumerable mechanisms to identify common goals, common genetic makeup, and common ideology. This is why in a country, people of the same religion/ political ideology unite for common purposes.This is why,people of the same state unite in the name of language; people of same district unite in the name of region; people of same family unite in the name of blood relation ;brothers or sisters unite in the name of common genes, and finally an individual himself or herself becomes selfish when it comes to his/ her bodily demands...! \n         How does the one gene identify the presence of another of its own kind in another individual? This is called  "green beard effect"..! The concept is simple: A gene has two functions in the body: the first is its true function- to synthesize some protein that the body needs. The second function is that the gene produces some visible character in the body of the individual so that another individual can identify this character and extend its cooperation. A gene can thus make a person's mind more inclined to accept religion as a way of brotherhood/cooperation \n (like we see in some terrorist and racist groups) or it can simply tell the individual to cooperate for food. \n       The lowest level of this sort of cooperation is seen in symbiotic and parasitic relationships in animal or plant or even microscopic world of unicellular organisms. Bacteria live in our gut and help us digest cellulose from veg-food, we provide them a congenial environment to survive and reproduce. This is symbiosis. Parasites usually harm the host and eventually destroy them.Eg: fungi. \nTherefore all life forms on earth have likings for some or the other kind of organism. In social animals, the liking is towards individuals of the same species. In other groups, it may be towards a parasite or a symbiont. Some plants in the amazon provide "food" for ants that colonize among their roots, and in turn the ants provide protection to these plants from external animals. Som
37425
There's a new quasi-scientific theory being bandied about called "memetics."  Although the idea is still in its infancy, it has some interesting potential.  The idea stems from the notion of evolution from a gene's perspective--that an individual gene has no "concern" for the organism that propagates it; rather, if it happens to flourish it will become abundant.  If, by chance, it should convey an advantage to its host such that its host becomes more prosperous and abundant, then so much the better; but that isn't expressly a requirement.  The notion emerges to help explain things like viruses, and genes that are advantageous in a the heterozygous creature but detrimental to the homozygous creature (like the gene for sickle cell anemia--the disease results from being homozygous--that is, havving two copies--of the gene, while being heterozygous--having one copy--can convey a resistance to malaria).\n\nThat much we know.  But when looking from this reductionist perspective, we find that there are three essential elements to evolution: replication with retention of traits, variation, and selection.  With those three factors combined, any system will necessarily result in an evolutionary pattern.\n\nHere's where the idea of memes come in.  Memes are behaviors or behavioral patterns that can be copied by one person from another.  From the memetics standpoint, this tendency to instinctively copy behaviors is THE defining trait of the human.  As babies, we copy facial expressions and phonemes (phonemes are the building blocks of sound in a given language), we copy grammar, we copy tool making and usage, etc.  Synchronized/choreographed dance is a good example of a behavior unique to humans existing in all cultures and centered around mimicry.  At any rate, these behaviors that we might copy--be they languages, tool, stereotyped motions, religion, philosophy, whatever--are collectively called memes.\n\nWhile there hasn't yet been a rigorously scientific theory developed, there are certain elements that many biologists can agree upon.  Human evolution is dominated by a form of meme-gene co-evolutionary process.  The core idea that reults is this: while a meme might be detrimental to an individual, and hence reduce the chances of an individual progenating and passing genes to a next generation, if can simultaneously be beneficial to a group that propagates that meme.  Hence, it will be evolutionarily favored.\n\nAs an example, let's look at self-sacrifice in a battle.  An individual who sacrifices his life for a "greater good" will reduce his own chances of reproducing.  At first glance, we should regard this as evolutionarily detrimental, and hence, something that should be eliminated by evolution.  But in the broader perspective, a nation or culture that places a premium on courage and the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the greater good will thrive in an armed conflict, since the people will work better as a unified and courageous fighting force.  The benefits to the community as a whole are evolutionarily out-weighed by the few losses of those who sacrifice their lives--hence, the community sharing and promoting that meme thrives.  Those who are evolutionarily best suited to adopt, promote, and maintain memes become some of the most prosperous in a society unified by memes.  Things like IQ would correlate well with the ability to adapt memes.  In the long run, the genepool would select towards the ability to acquire and propagate useful memes, or even to innovate new memes.\n\nThe lesson of the last several thousand years has been that those with the best memes win.  Those memes include things like math and science as well as religion.  Becoming religious would carry a small risk of finding yourself in a position to be sacrificed in the name of your God or gods, but it would carry the certain benefit of having the protection of the entire religious community.  During the Da
638886
Start by reading the texts.  We did not descend from chimps.  We evolved from a common ancestor.\n\nWe share more DNA with Bonobo Chimps than we do with Neanderthal.\n\nLooking for predictions is interesting but not likely to be helpful.  First the rate of genetic mutation in DNA is known. \n\nSecond, there is no telling what evolutionary pressures will cause an expression of a gene to reflect a mutation ahead of the event.\n\nThird, given all of the mutagenic chemicals used in so many facets of production and general living, it is hard to make the prediction you ask for.\n\nConsider these: \n\nIn fewer than 70 years our ability to use penicillin and many of the early antibiotics is severely diminished.  in fact there are strains of bacteria that are completely resistant to some antibiotics (i.e: vancomycin resistant enterococus = VRE). As people improperly use antibiotics, new and hardier strains of bacteria emerge.\n\nThe thre most devistating epidemics in human history were variation of the inlfuenza.  The first is the Spanish Flu of 1918 which killed more people in 18 months than WWI, or (24 years of AIDS).  Here is what the WHO says about all three (Spanish Flu, Asian Flu, and Hong Kong Flu).\n\nPandemic influenza\n\nThree times in the last century, the influenza A viruses have undergone major genetic changes mainly in their H-component, resulting in global pandemics and large tolls in terms of both disease and deaths. The most infamous pandemic was “Spanish Flu” which affected large parts of the world population and is thought to have killed at least 40 million people in 1918-1919. More recently, two other influenza A pandemics occurred in 1957 (“Asian influenza”) and 1968 (“Hong Kong influenza”) and caused significant morbidity and mortality globally. In contrast to current influenza epidemics, these pandemics were associated with severe outcomes also among healthy younger persons, albeit not on such a dramatic scale as the “Spanish flu” where the death rate was highest among healthy young adults.\n\nMost recently, limited outbreaks of a new influenza subtype A(H5N1) directly transmitted from birds to humans have occurred in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China in 1997 and 2003.
517035
One piece of advice: Try asking more directional questions rather than a title question.\nTheory of natural selection is a model for explaining the mutational changes that species go through in nature by the pass of time. Even Darwin had to go through guess work when he had to talk about the origin of species.\nThe strongest evidence nowadays about the same ancestory you asked for is the DNA. well if you analyze the DNA of the magpie the crow, human and a bacteria together they are roughly all the same let's say at least 90% of it are alike. So one can deduce that maybe one day they were all oroginated from a single molecule as a start but went through different mutations to form different kinds of species in time
582315
Errr, not really.\n\nYou must also understand that evolution in no way says anything about the origins of life.  That's a whole other subject ;).
137800
First, DNA is not the person, its the template for making protein which can build a person, but its no more the person than blueprint are a building.. Second, if you are talking biologically, the only characterstics that are passed on to the progeny are those in the DNA-But keep in mind, philosophy, ideas, culture can all evolve, and of course you will teach these to your children, and thus pass them on.  I think, though , that your question was what biological traits are passed on, and those are only carried in the DNA.  Protein, by the way, does not evolve independently-If the DNA mutates, it will produce a slightly different protein (or more or less of a protein, if the mutation was in a promoter and not coding region of DNA).  Proteins do not pass directly from parent to child.
130699
I completely see your point.  It seems like you have really put some thought into this, and you seem very intelligent.  If everyone in the world survives, no evolution will take place for sure.  So at the very least we will be at a standstill.  You sound like someone with good genes though, we should meet and maybe we could improve the gene pool together.
638972
this is exactly why i am a creationist. i've studied microbiology and i cannot see how RNA or DNA could have invented itself.
667271
Try this , it really helped me in my first few lectures in cell bio , such as DNA and RNA . Loads of animations and stuff ! \n\nhttp://www.johnkyrk.com/DNAtranscription.html
279348
The earth is 4.6 billion years old. The sun is close to 5 billion. Liquid water did not exist on earth until about 4 billion years ago. Life seems to have appeared 3.8 billion years ago. By 3.5 billion years ago, we have fossilized stromalites which are IDENTICAL to the ones still made today by prokayote blue-green algae in the Indian ocean.\n\nThe first eukaryote organisms (with cells structures like ours) first show up 1 billion years ago. Within 500 millions years from then, complex forms can be found in the fossil record which are ancestral to modern lineages. But here are NO fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals or birds. These all arise later in sequence by evolutionary modification as the fossil record clearly shows.\n\nThe bottom line is that only evolution provides a comprehensive argument that explains what we see in the fossil record. The Intelligent Design people are frauds who misrepresent the data and are no more credible that the Gish/Morris combine of liars that plaugued us in the 70s and 80s.\n\nI (Dr. Art Sippo) am a 53 year old cradle Catholic with a BS in Chemistry (Magna cum laude)from St. Peter's College, an MD from Vanderbilt University, and a Masters in Public Health from Johns Hopkins. After Catholic apologetics, paleontology is my favorite hobby. I have been studying it since I was a kid in the 1950s.\n\nWith regard to "macroevolution" that term is actually passe. It is still touted by Creationoids so that they can say they support microevolution but not macroevolution. These terms were used around 30 years ago before the discovery of the complexity of eukaryote genetics. Microevolution was what happened when there were single alterations either in DNA sequences or protein sequences due to mutations. There were other mechanisms that worked in bacteria (eg., conjugation, plasmids) but their utility in eukaryotes was questionable. At that time it was assumed that prokaryote (eg, bacterial) genetics was directly applicable to eukaryotes (eg, mammals). We now know that this is not so.\n\nEukaryote genetics is so complicated that it has not been fully elucidated. There is modification of the transcription of DNA to messenger RNA, a further cropping of m-RNA into introns and extrons, and further modification of the proteins for which they code. None of this happens in prokaryotes.\n\nAlso eukaryotes use a "homeo box" generalized assembly kit which is functionally identical in all lineages and which can with slight tweaks make large changes in how the genotype (DNA data) is expressed into a phenotype (external structure). \n\nAlso, eukaryotes use chromosomes which rearrange themselves spontaneously in several different ways. This helps to contribute to evolution in the absence of any DNA mutations.\n\nAll of these mechanisms -- and more -- contribute to evolution. In fact everything that is necessary for what had been called "macroevolution" is present in these more complex genetic systems.\n\nWith regard to the changes in species of higher animals, many Creationoids have said that there were large systematic gaps between major taxa. They are right, In the linnean system there are large SYSTEMatic gaps, but these gaps are due to the system of classification, and do not correspond to real biological differences. Linnaeus was a Creationoid. He thought that each species was distinctly made by God. So he created a complex classification system that emphasized distinctions and did not assume common descent. In reality, his classifications were merely man-made conventions that limped badly. For example, the Class Reptilia included not only lizards but snakes (some of which bear live young and don't lay eggs), turtles, crocodiles (that all have 4 chambered hearts), dinosaurs (some of which have feathers), ichthyosaurs, mososaurs, plesiosaurs, and pterosaurs (some of which have fur). The problem with fish is even more complex.\n\nIn many cases, an organism does not fit into the Li