Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
By acceding to the advanced level. By growing up. By using ourHow?
By skipping it, or by going through it?
Accede: agree to a demand, request, or treaty.By acceding to the advanced level.
* cough *By growing up.
Whoa thar ..* cough *
If you grew up without the fear of the LORD, you stunted your growth.
Psalm 36:1 The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.Whoa thar ..
Growing up without fear leads to a stunted human?
Yup.Wal, podner, you knows there ain't nothing so peculiar that some dang fool won't say it, and even believe it.
So now everyone on board the Titantic when it sank, were 'stunted' humans(?)Yup.
Evolution is the way the offspring are different from their parents. If the changes trend in one particular direction, then the population, over many generations, evolves.
For example, giraffes evolved long necks. We can imagine jumping in a time machine and travelling back in time to see a population of early giraffes that had much shorter necks. In that POPULATION, some of the INDIVIDUALS would have had necks slightly longer than average, and some of the INDIVIDUALS would have had necks that were slightly shorter than average. The INDIVIDUALS with the longer necks would have had an easier time getting food, since they could reach higher into the trees and thus get leaves that were beyond the reach of the individuals with shorter necks. So, the longer-necked individuals would have been more likely to survive because they had access to a food source that shorter necked individuals didn't have.
So, the INDIVIDUALS with the longer necks would have been able to produce more offspring than the shorter necked individuals, and the genes that produced a slightly longer than average neck would have spread throughout the POPULATION. So, if we jump in our time machine and travel ahead to see what this POPULATION is like after ten generations have passed, we'd see that the genes for the slightly longer than average neck are now in many if not all of the INDIVIDUALS. The POPULATION has EVOLVED to have a slightly longer neck than it did when we first saw them.
So individuals don't evolve themselves. If we took one of these early giraffes and could keep it alive forever, it would never get the longer neck. It's genes would never change. It could not evolve. Because evolution is how the INDIVIDUALS are different from their parents. But it's all the individuals in the population, because the genes spread through the population.
There are two main factors that influence the traits that an organism has. The first is genetic and the second is environmental. If you have two members of a population that live together (say, two zebra in the same herd), then they are facing the same environmental factors and any difference between them is likely to be more genetic in nature than environmental.
Okay, but also try to see this from my point of view as well. If I was trying to explain to you how airplanes fly, I could tell you about how the curved surface of the wing produces lift, but if you start asking my why the wings have those little turned up bits at the very end, it's only going to introduce a lot of complicated aerodynamic theory which just isn't applicable to a "beginner's guide" sort of thing. I'm trying to show you the broad strokes here, and while your caveats may be valid, any explanation of them would require a more in-depth understanding. I'm trying to do the basic stuff first. Then you'll have the understanding required to look at the caveats.
New variations happen due to mutation, which is basically copying errors in the DNA when cells divide. If an individual has such a change, this mutation in their genetic sequence can be passed to offspring since the offspring gets half of its DNA from each parent.
For example, I have a daughter. She got half her DNA from me. If I had a mutation, and that mutation was in the half of her DNA that she got from me, then that mutation was passed to her, and she has it too.
I'm trying to introduce concepts here. It's difficult to understand how these concepts work within the framework of evolution before one understands ALL the concepts of evolution.
You are correct. When I said they can influence the survival, I meant "how well the individual survives," and that could indeed be a reduction in its chances of survival as you said.
These traits aren't necessarily completely new traits. Often they are simply variations on what is already there. Completely new traits - like a horse being born with wings - just don't happen because the change in the DNA required for this kind of thing is absolutely huge, and when you make large changes, it's much more likely that you are going to end up with something that doesn't work.
Think of it this way:
If you are standing on the footpath (sidewalk in America), and you had to randomly move to a different part of the footpath, would you want to move a large distance or a small distance? If you randomly moved a large distance, say a mile, you could end up anywhere. Inside a building, on a road. You can't predict where. But if you randomly moved a smaller distance, say a foot, you are much more likely to stay on the path. And if you moved a very small amount, like an inch, you're almost certain to remain on the path.
Likewise, if there's a large change in the DNA when it gets copied into an offspring, then a large change is probably just going to end up with an unviable embryo. But a small change has a pretty decent chance of survival, because a small change is going to keep it close to something that works already (specifically, the parents).
Most species have a natural drive to produce offspring. Without reproduction, the genetic line dies out completely and there is no evolution.
And this stuff of "within-the-species traits" and "mutations" makes it sound like you think a mutation is something like that horse born with wings stuff. It's not. As I've said, most mutations are very small changes to what's already there, since larger changes tend to result in unviable embryos.
Yes, if they can breed, and breed with others with the same genetic trait and so produce offspring with that genetic result. Still sounds like 'within-the-species' to me, but I don't know enough to say it can't happen by mutation.The simple answer is that the individuals with the beneficial traits will be likely to produce more offspring since they are probably going to live longer due precisely to the beneficial traits they have. A longer life means more breeding opportunities.
I understand and accept the principle here, unless you mean by it something I don't see implied. This is, so far, over a long period of time, selective by the dying out of those who can't reach the higher leaves, variation within the species.
All other things being equal, yes.
Of course.
Obviously
I'm trying to see that, but we aren't talking about airplanes here. We aren't even talking about how the evolution of engineering has produced the winglets.
The problem I see here comes when the basic understanding includes assumptions that are only assertions, from my pov. I don't mind following your narrative, but I can't agree to it all without caveats. You don't need to explain why my caveat is not applicable, but you will sooner or later need to if I am to believe your narrative.
But she's only half-got it?
It's those upturned thumbs. Very attractive and all, but not much use in the kitchen or in the field, unless she is a crossbow hunter. Good thing we have restaurants!
The problem with understanding all the concepts of evolution is the acceptance of what look to me like assumptions and/or generalizations taken to be universally specific. I'm, sorry, but I'm skeptical.
For example, when you say those with positive traits are more likely to produce offspring, because they tend to live longer, I'm thinking, "sometimes, maybe". I don't know that their beneficial mutation doesn't usually also accompany other non-beneficial mutations that include maybe sterility etc, or that enough examples with a like mutation will occur to mate with the 'mutated' offspring to produce further generations of offspring of the same sort, nor even that it is by new mutation, as opposed to already existing genetics within the population.
Yes, if they can breed, and breed with others with the same genetic trait and so produce offspring with that genetic result. Still sounds like 'within-the-species' to me, but I don't know enough to say it can't happen by mutation.
Yup.
Estrid didn't say they did.You do realise that neither the owners nor the builders claimed she was unsinkable, right?
Just as the psalm you quoted, didn't say anything about stunting human growth(?)Estrid didn't say they did.
Neither did I.
Your avatar.I'm not sure what you mean here.
I'm still not following.Your avatar.
Using a similar form of incoherence AV is renowned for, the Titanic sunk because some inane Protestant painted the anti-Catholic number 3909 04 on the ship (look at the number in the mirror).You do realise that neither the owners nor the builders claimed she was unsinkable, right? Why did people think the Titanic was unsinkable? - Quora
Was just trying to be funny. I was pretending the upturned thumbs of your avatar were the mutation you passed down to your daughter, good for some things, but not for others. No big deal.I'm still not following.
Don't care about what the bible says, go with x.The reason I think this is because these standards get ridiculed:
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
Don't care about what the bible says, go with y.2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
Don't care about what the bible says, start research.3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
Don't care about what the bible says, go with x.4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
Don't care about what the bible says, start research.5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?