Evolution's Impact On Ecosystems Shown Directly For First Time

Curious how much people can talk and deem themselves knowledgeable about a subject they plainly know little about.

...go figure.

You're back-excellent!

I know, I know,
I'm sure i was well missed.

...hm, quick note in regards 'junk DNA', they took a few million base pairs of junk dna out of mice.

No effect whatsoever.

https://www.paleoportal.org/index.php
For anyone interested, Here's a nice little site with good details on fossil records, paleontology, etc.

Interesting. I'll have to read up on that a bit, but I know science suspects a code.

Maybe it proves it has a use elsewhere, such as further down the generations. It clearly works differently to functional DNA.

Four species including humans, have resisted change-random mutation-for 400 million years apparently. Evolution theory stumbles a bit to explain how all these mutations going on just happen to leave this part alone. This quote is from the BBC News link below:

"We know this because ever since rodents, humans, chickens and fish shared an ancestor - about 400 million years ago - these sequences have resisted change. This strongly suggests that any alteration would have damaged the animals' ability to survive."

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3703935.stm

There could be a link with genetic disorders too, according to Prof Stylianos Antonarakis of the University of Geneva Medical School:


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1443394/Scientists-vie-to-break-junk-DNAs-secret-code.html

How long did they live?

Were they able to reproduce-with each other and other mice?

Did they get ill?

What percentage were apparently unaffected?

Who here is capable of doing this to mice, because I shudder at the thought.

There's a lot of interesting research being done on junk DNA,
At the moment it's simply hard to tell if it serves any function, it certainly does not seem too.

But it could be discovered that it does at some point who knows?
Its effects are certainly subtle if there at all. There is some evidence that it can play a role in regulatory in development from embryo and socialisation.

There is a LOT of junk dna, so some could still do things its almost certain at this point that some of it serves no direct function.

Anyway, its relevant to the discussion of whether evolution occurs, its a pretty advanced topic in biology.

I know that there are two models of evolution, gradualism, and punctuated equilibrium. The equilibrium one state that evolution occurs at alarming speeds, but only happens every million of years. But 11 weeks? Holy crap!! What if the human species just changed like that? EW!!

There are raging debates in our universities about these things. Punctuated Equilibrium doesn't sit well with genetics. Interdisciplinary incongruency isn't given much airing. But the gaps are becoming evident.

Eleven weeks to make everything fit with current knowledge would be, sort of, silly.

Indeed, the shuffling of genes amongst different species is what really happens i believe... However newer genes could be formed as instrincts or perhaps even physical growths to adapt to a certain environment for example for the polar bear... Now i don't know what a polar bear looked like a couple of hundred or thousand years ago but it seems to me its fur has adapted to be thick (warmth) and be white in colour (camoflage) to help stop prey spotting their approach which allows easier hunting (survival)

Evolution is purely just a re-sequencing of genes and development of new ones to sustain ones self in this world (survival). I don't see how critics can be so determined to shatter this theory as it seems perfectly biologically logical to me.

Don't even try to argue with jonnythan about scientific topics. Don't dismiss what he says because some of what he says may seem illogical to you, but in previous experiances of having discussions with jonnythan, particularly about astonomy and other sciences, he has explained to me and made me understand things I would never of thought of.

what im really trying to say is, just ask questions and learn. Especially from people who have studied science in high education.

I've talked about astronomy purely from what i've read, heard & using my own understanding. Put your point across but don't disagree with another if you have no real factual basis or source of the information in subject.

I'll argue with anyone man, woman, child, layman or expert.

Genetics is in the early stages of research. We can't say we know certain genes do nothing. They *appear to do nothing, that's all.

You're obviously a genetics expert. I'm glad we have you on the site to tell us all about the science of genetics and microbiology.

You still don't get it. I can't believe you don't get it yet. We've been over it so many times.

Evolution does not have a direction. It does not result in a species acquiring the best possible attributes for survival, otherwise every animal would be heavily armored, bristling with laser guns and breeding like fruit flies. It doesn't work like that. It doesn't drive change in any way, it's just a process that emerges naturally in life because the creatures that can survive and reproduce will inevitably become dominant because their attributes are passed on to their offspring. If a creature was born with extra limbs or wings, and it managed to pass these traits on to offspring, then its genes will survive. If wings or extra limbs hinder its survival and it dies before reproducing, then its genes are f***ed. But the chances of a creature devoloping new organs or limbs are vanishingly, and must happen gradually over a very long time if they happen at all. We don't have wings because none of our ancestors had wings which aided their survival and were passed on to us.

If more than 50 years (or arguably 100 years) of research into genetics counts as "early stages" then I suppose you're right. But it is known that a significant number of genes in any given genome are inactive (but not useless, because two individuals must have very similar genomes in order to produce fertile offspring, so essentially every gene is needed for reproduction).