What is Digg?11 Comments
- induren, on 07/16/2009, -0/+7This reminds me of something an old teacher of mine once said:
Studies have also indicated that there's a balance between "good repair," and, "too good repair," that ends up coming with other costs. The other costs can be a loss of speed in DNA replication, or other odd side effects.
And seriously, there's not enough people studying Archea. I wish more people would. Kudos to these researchers! - ricker2005, on 07/16/2009, -0/+7It's not a contradiction at all. You've mistakenly confused mutation with improvement. Mutations as a whole are neither inherently positive or negative. A single mutation, however, can have a positive or negative effect on the individual. Hence your body isn't preventing improvement...it's simply attempting to fix mutations because some of them will have negative effects. Sure some mutations will be beneficial, but your cells are repairing your DNA because there is a good chance mutations will instead result you getting something like, say, cancer. Regardless, your body can try and fix mutations all it wants (and it does), but you still end up with mutations because the system isn't perfect. Mutations that provide a reproductive advantage and can be passed from generation to generation will thenbe more likely be maintained in the population, resulting in genetic chance in the species over time.
BTW could you have made yourself look like more of an ignorant twit in your post? Just because you don't understand evolution, cellular biology, or scientific evidence doesn't mean that the rest of us are in the boat with you. Your last sentence comment is the mating call of a loser. - acehorne, on 07/16/2009, -0/+5I like the quotes on words like "random". Like there is some conspiracy about whether errors are random or not.
Sorry you don't understand chemistry/biology or even reasons we have DNA repair pathways and their fundamental processes. Furthermore there are SEVERAL different DNA repair pathways dedicated to fix specific types of DNA lesions which arise as a consequence of needing oxygen to breath (I know, your mind probably just exploded!).
Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean you should take a dump on it and make yourself look like an d-bag. Put down your bible and pick up any issue of "Scientific American". I find it a good magazine for people who are curious about science and have a basic understanding of it but who aren't research scientists. - Pinkertinkle, on 07/16/2009, -0/+5This reminds me too much of my horrible genetics class. Centimorgan what?
- AndrewMoyer, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3You had me at "archaeon Haloferax volcanii"
- ScissorHand26, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2Actually, by the way he's talking he sounds like a creationist. It's an argument I've heard a lot, and sadly similar to arguments I've used, except of course for how poorly worded his was. I used to be a fundie in that sense, though now I'm agnostic *phew* so I recognize it when I hear it. The only assumption that might be wrong is he's Christian. Many creationists are Muslim as well.
- Edge00, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1I would guess that its not that people don't want to, but that they can't get the money to do so. If enough researchers would start getting grants for this type of research you would see more people write grant proposals for it.
- Edge00, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1I'm not sure why the bible was brought into this conversation. Not to defend CrazedLeper, but acehorne...it seems to me like you are putting words in his mouth.
- peteypolo, on 07/16/2009, -3/+2"meh"
- Presbyterian, on 07/16/2009, -7/+3It's quiet in here...
- CrazedLeper, on 07/16/2009, -9/+3So, lemme get this straight. DNA owes it's existence to "random" errors but it corrects itself to prevent "improvement"? Anyone want to explain just how we "evolved" with this inherent contradiction built-in on the cellular level? Never mind; don't. Let me save you the effort: "Just did".
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is