Originally posted by Feastboy Plasmid transfer can happen (and also between different species I think), although I don't know if it's faster.
I think it's a type of evolution because it's to do with the exchange of genetic material. When the plasmids are copied theres aditional room for error to creep in increasing the likelyhood of DNA Mutation.
It seems to me that evolutionary theory applies better to the plasmid than the organism it inhabits.
Originally posted by jaywill [b]================================
It was considered in Kansas. The creationists argued their case and the people realized there was no substance to their arguments.
=======================================
Inherit the Spin.[/b]
Just keep insisting you're right. Who needs a logical argument when you can just keep saying "IM RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG" over and over and over and over and over and over...
I modified that post; take a look at the new version.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung It seems to me that evolutionary theory applies better to the plasmid than the organism it inhabits.
Well, the plasmids affect the organism, and the organism provides the body. You could say that it's not animals that evolve, it's just the DNA and the animals are just the machine that carries them around.
Originally posted by Feastboy Well, the plasmids affect the organism, and the organism provides the body. You could say that it's not animals that evolve, it's just the DNA and the animals are just the machine that carries them around.
But the DNA is stuck inside the animal. It doesn't leave or admit new DNA which is separate from the rest of the DNA and which can come and go. Thus, the evolution of the DNA for a human being is tied to that particular human being and his line of descent; plasmids don't work like that.
Well, there are retroviruses and things, but those at least get into the main DNA. Plasmids remain separate even as the bacterium uses them to make proteins.
Originally posted by jaywill [b]=============================
The creationists argued their case and the people realized there was no substance to their arguments.
============================
Who appointed Williams Jennings Bryant to be a spokesman for all Christians or all creationists?
Had G.H. Pember been on the witness stand the outcome I think would have been different. He could have easily fielded the questions of the Attorney.[/b]
Originally posted by AThousandYoung But the DNA is stuck inside the animal. It doesn't leave or admit new DNA which is separate from the rest of the DNA and which can come and go. Thus, the evolution of the DNA for a human being is tied to that particular human being and his line of descent; plasmids don't work like that.
Yes but it is recombined and passed on in the young, I imagine when it's being recombined thats the most likely point at which marco-mutation can happen, if the embryo is only a few cells big then a change in the DNA in one of the cells could be copied to many other cells as they split and divide.
DNA mutations happen more often that you think probably, it's just that if they happen in a toe cell it probably won't cause too much to happen. Unless it's cancerous obviously.
Ha! You edited yours so I'll edit mine...
Yeah I see what you mean about the plasmids, the plasmid does sometimes join with the main Nucleic strand of the bacteria (actually you already mentioned retro-viruses didn't you!). Hmm. Neither could survive for long without the other though right? More like parralel evolution between parasite and host than the straightforward stuff.
What does WJB have to do with Kansas?
========================
Oops. I thought you meant Tennassee. Point taken.
However since evos always want to say any other case is Tennassee II it amounts to about a re-run.
Sure you do. Same old stuff as Creationism WJB style. Isn't that what you evos say? Now Abrupt Appearance. Now Intelligent Design. Don't you evos always try to stir up public opinion that it is the same old rehash?
Seems that the first thing is to win in the public opinion arena - "Those religious guys are back, dressed in white science garb. Here we go again."
Originally posted by jaywill [b]====================
What does WJB have to do with Kansas?
========================
Oops. I thought you meant Tennassee. Point taken.
However since evos always want to say any other case is Tennassee II it amounts to about a re-run.
Sure you do. Same old stuff as Creationism WJB style. Isn't that what you evos say? Now Abrupt ...[text shortened]... gious guys are back, dressed in white science garb. Here we go again."
Originally posted by jaywill [b]====================
What does WJB have to do with Kansas?
========================
Oops. I thought you meant Tennassee. Point taken.
However since evos always want to say any other case is Tennassee II it amounts to about a re-run.
Sure you do. Same old stuff as Creationism WJB style. Isn't that what you evos say? Now Abrupt ...[text shortened]... gious guys are back, dressed in white science garb. Here we go again."
Sure you do Evos.[/b]
What are you babbling about now?
Who are "you Evos"? Who said what? When did this person say it?
Originally posted by Feastboy Yes but it is recombined and passed on in the young, I imagine when it's being recombined thats the most likely point at which marco-mutation can happen, if the embryo is only a few cells big then a change in the DNA in one of the cells could be copied to many other cells as they split and divide.
DNA mutations happen more often that you think probably ...[text shortened]... t? More like parralel evolution between parasite and host than the straightforward stuff.
Yeah, the classic Darwinian "descent with modification" is in some ways an oversimplification, like Newton's laws are a simplification of more complex relativistic equations.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Yeah, the classic Darwinian "descent with modification" is in some ways an oversimplification, like Newton's laws are a simplification of more complex relativistic equations.
Descent with modification would certainly be an oversimplification although I think in a way both Newtons and Darwins theories are so powerful because they are simple. I know even less physics than I do biology but Newtons work always seemed to be the base to build on rather than the simplification of other things.
20 Jan '08 23:40
evolution
Back to Top