For modern biology, the theory of evolution is as fundamental as the theory of relativity it is for the physical. This does not necessarily mean to say that both theories explain perfectly the reality, but rather that they offer in their areas of application, by far the best explanations for many phenomena observed on this planet to the state of current knowledge ... that is until proven otherwise ....
In biology, the evolution of species is the phenomenon of change, not necessarily better (even if the improvement since then transmits the privileged), as a visible expression of the phenotype and genotype of the direct (ie genetic) of individuals of a species includes phenotype for your involuco outside, namely the body, genotype means your DNA! Initially it was thought that the species fossero così come erano state create, e quindi immutabili (creazionismo). Il formidabile lavoro di riorganizzazione delle conoscenze botaniche e zoologiche svolto da Linneo cominciava però a suggerire che potessero esservi delle relazioni tra specie simili, e Linneo stesso, che era fissista, avanzò verso la fine della sua vita l'ipotesi che, attraverso l'ibridazione, potessero formarsi specie nuove. Anche Georges-Louis Leclerc, avanzò qualche ipotesi evoluzionista.
A partire dalle sue osservazione sugli invertebrati, Lamarck pubblicò nel 1809 l'opera Philosophie zoologique, dove giunse alla conclusione che gli organismi così come si presentavano, were the result of a gradual process of change that took place under the pressure of environmental conditions . Formulated, therefore, the hypothesis that all living beings is always a boost to the internal change that makes them become increasingly complex and manifests itself through "use and disuse of parts" and "the inheritance of characters acquired. " This means that, through use or disuse of a part of the body, the individual tends to develop certain characteristics (acquired characteristics) and then passed on to descendants. In this way, the various adjustments, adding and transmitting through the generations, have given rise to new species, different from previous ones.
A partire dalle sue osservazione sugli invertebrati, Lamarck pubblicò nel 1809 l'opera Philosophie zoologique, dove giunse alla conclusione che gli organismi così come si presentavano, were the result of a gradual process of change that took place under the pressure of environmental conditions . Formulated, therefore, the hypothesis that all living beings is always a boost to the internal change that makes them become increasingly complex and manifests itself through "use and disuse of parts" and "the inheritance of characters acquired. " This means that, through use or disuse of a part of the body, the individual tends to develop certain characteristics (acquired characteristics) and then passed on to descendants. In this way, the various adjustments, adding and transmitting through the generations, have given rise to new species, different from previous ones.
Lamarck explained the evolution according to four principles:
- bodies there is an internal push toward perfection;
- 's bodies are able to adapt to the environment ;
- spontaneous generation is common;
- the characters acquired during life are transmitted to offspring.
The critical point of his theory were the ways in which these changes were transmitted to their descendants: a character that an individual acquires during its existence can not be passed on to his descendants, because the expression of that character is saved from the somatic cells and not by the germ. For example, a muscular person not handed down because the muscles in his muscle mass affects only somatic cells and germ than not being stored, which must pass on the hereditary characteristics, is not transmitted to offspring, although a study by CB Kidd, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, said that the 'ichthyosiform erythroderma, only disease linked to genes, and one was treated with hypnosis. This would therefore imply a 'will of the influence of DNA, which is transmitted from generation to generation. If the 'hypnosis can affect the DNA, the animals may unconsciously alter their DNA to adapt better to the environment.
The primitive antelope, cited by Lamarck, may have already altered his DNA, programming, to make sure it has a long neck, although this change does not manifest itself in 'the same animal. However it is already written into the DNA and the mutation will be transmitted to the descendants of the antelope in question. These observations would, therefore, take into account the Lamarck, given that natural selection has inconsistencies, such as the theory of transfer of fish to the mainland, because the lung was too complex to appear in a single random mutation.
Lamarck used the giraffe as an example of his thesis, primitive antelope, which he liked to burn the leaves of the trees, he stretched his neck verso l'alto con tutte le sue forze per arrivare al maggior numero di foglie possibile. Anche la lingua e le gambe si sarebbero allungate e tutte queste parti del corpo, di conseguenza, sarebbero diventate letteralmente un poco più lunghe, e questo allungamento si sarebbe trasmesso alla generazione successiva. La nuova generazione avrebbe avuto in partenza parti del corpo più lunghe e le avrebbe allungate ulteriormente e, poco per volta, l'antilope si sarebbe trasformata in giraffa. Lamarck assegnava una notevole importanza al ruolo attivo degli organismi nel modificarsi in risposta agli stimoli ambientali, e riteneva che l'uso di determinati organi, o parti di organi, provocasse modificazioni in modo che essi rispondessero meglio alle esigenze di sopravvivenza the animal, according to the principle "the function creates the organ". These changes would then be transmitted to the next generation, and the accumulation of acquired characteristics from generation to generation, would have led to the appearance of new species better adapted to the environment.
Lamarck had the merit of supporting the concept of evolution, against fixist conceptions of his time, claimed that living organisms are not immutable, but they become continuously and transformed to adapt to the environment and achieve a more efficient ability to survive that their changes accumulate over the generations, giving rise to new species.
Darwin, then gave una diversa spiegazione dei meccanismi dell'evoluzione biologica ma, nonostante che le ipotesi di Lamarck siano state in seguito dimostrate infondate... Lamarck rimane il precursore delle scienze evolutive, il primo scienziato ad affermare la trasformazione dei viventi.
La teoria dell'evoluzione delle specie è uno dei pilastri della biologia moderna. Nelle sue linee essenziali, essa è riconducibile oggi all'opera di Charles Darwin (che vide nella selezione naturale il motore fondamentale dell'evoluzione della vita sulla Terra) e alla genetica.
Darwin, biologo, geologo e zoologo britannico, celebre per aver formulato la teoria dell'evoluzione delle specie animali e vegetali per selezione naturale random mutation congenital hereditary (the origin of species), and have theorized the lineage of all primates (including humans) from a common ancestor (Descent of Man).
According to the theory of evolution, species have descended from one another, the problem was to try to Speg why the evolution occurred .
Darwin's theory was based on two fundamental principles:
1. the individual case for different birth (brilliant idea, since Darwin did not know about DNA and genetic mutations)
2. the environment selects individuals best suited , because they live longer and reproduce more, and then transmit le loro caratteristiche alla progenie.
La selezione naturale avviene soprattutto in caso di scarsezza di risorse. L'esempio riportato in tutti i libri è quello delle giraffe . Le giraffe derivano da animali con il collo molto più corto. Secondo la teoria di darwin, una giraffa con il collo più lungo è nata per caso; questo poteva anche essere un vantaggio modesto in caso di abbondanza di cibo, ma, nel momento in cui il cibo è diventato, per qualche motivo, più scarso, la giraffa con il collo più lungo ha potuto nutrirsi meglio, raggiungendo le foglie più in alto. Questo individuo ha vissuto più a lungo degli altri, ha generato un maggior numero di figli e ha trasmesso il collo lungo a un certo numero di essi. A loro volta queste giraffe con il collo più lungo, si sono nutrite di più e hanno generato più figli, trasmettendo loro questa caratteristica.
Esiste anche un altro tipo di selezione molto importante: la selezione sessuale. Per esempio, molti potrebbero chiedersi qual è il vantaggio dei pesanti e voluminosi palchi dei cervi. Lì, di sicuro, non è stato l'ambiente a selezione quel carattere. Le femmine, però scelgono di accoppiarsi e riprodursi con gli animali con i palchi più voluminosi, quindi saranno questi gli individui che si riprodurranno e trasmetteranno le loro caratteristiche genetiche alla progenie.
Per entrare nel vivo della discussione l’evoluzione Darwinian evolution postulates that "practically all living beings, or at least all of their most interesting aspects are the result of the work of natural selection on random variation.
whether the general principles of evolutionary theory are consolidated in the scientific community, the secondary aspects of the theory are still widely discussed and are the subject of active research.
The definition of the concept of evolution has been a revolution in scientific thinking in biology, and has inspired numerous theories and models in other fields of knowledge.
However, when Darwin developed his theory, scientists knew little or nothing of the extraordinary complexity the living cell. The modern biochemistry, the study of life at the molecular level, revealed part of that complexity. He also raised serious objections and doubts about Darwin's theory ....
The alleged evolutionary process involves the gradual acquisition of useful features. Darwin knew his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection had to overcome a major obstacle when he said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists which can not be formed by many successive slight modifications, my theory would break down completely"
One of the main objections to the evolutionary model is that natural selection, the engine Darwinian evolution, it only works if there is something to choose: something that is useful at this time, not tomorrow. "
This raises a number of questions for scientists to be honest: "As we developed the reaction centers of photosynthesis? As the carriage began intramolecular? How did the biosynthesis of cholesterol? How does the retina began to be involved in the vision? How has the way of the signals of phosphoproteins? "" The very fact that none of these problems be addressed, if not resolved, it is very clear indication that Darwinism provides an approach which is inadequate for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems. "
If Darwin's theory can not explain the molecular basis of complex cells, such as may constitute a satisfactory explanation of the existence of millions of species that inhabit the earth?
As it may seem plausible Darwinian theory of evolution in the eyes of some scientists, in the end they must face the question: Even assuming that life forms have evolved by natural selection, how did life originate? In other words, the problem lies not in the survival of the fittest, but in the arrival of the fittest and the first! However, as indicated by his comments on the evolution of the eye, Darwin, the issue was not how he started life. He wrote: "The way in which a nerve becomes sensitive to light does not concern us more than we about the way in which life appeared for the first time."
Since the probability that evolution has produced the infinite variety and complexity of life forms are absolutely negligible, find it hard to believe that all this has evolved in the right direction by chance? You wonder how any creature could survive in the struggle for the survival of the fittest, while he was still evolving eyes, or fingers while he was forming a primitive sub-human body? You wonder how they fatto a sopravvivere le cellule se erano ancora incomplete e non funzionali?
Dovremmo credere che per puro caso l’evoluzione abbia creato anche un maschio e una femmina contemporaneamente, in modo da perpetuare la nuova specie. Come se non bastasse, dovremmo inoltre credere che il maschio e la femmina si siano evoluti non solo contemporaneamente, ma anche nello stesso luogo! Se non si incontravano, addio procreazione!
Di sicuro, credere che la vita esista in milioni di forme perfezionate come risultato di milioni di colpi di fortuna richiede una dose di credulità che ha dell’inverosimile!!!!
Il problema della teoria evolutiva è che manca il motivo, il meccanismo chemical, which generates the evolutionary trend and to make us understand how we can create systems that while changing seem to have an "irreducible complexity". This may seem a matter of logic does not matter if we admit that life is born by chance and a problem solved if we accept that life has been engineered by God in all its forms
- bodies there is an internal push toward perfection;
- 's bodies are able to adapt to the environment ;
- spontaneous generation is common;
- the characters acquired during life are transmitted to offspring.
The critical point of his theory were the ways in which these changes were transmitted to their descendants: a character that an individual acquires during its existence can not be passed on to his descendants, because the expression of that character is saved from the somatic cells and not by the germ. For example, a muscular person not handed down because the muscles in his muscle mass affects only somatic cells and germ than not being stored, which must pass on the hereditary characteristics, is not transmitted to offspring, although a study by CB Kidd, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, said that the 'ichthyosiform erythroderma, only disease linked to genes, and one was treated with hypnosis. This would therefore imply a 'will of the influence of DNA, which is transmitted from generation to generation. If the 'hypnosis can affect the DNA, the animals may unconsciously alter their DNA to adapt better to the environment.
The primitive antelope, cited by Lamarck, may have already altered his DNA, programming, to make sure it has a long neck, although this change does not manifest itself in 'the same animal. However it is already written into the DNA and the mutation will be transmitted to the descendants of the antelope in question. These observations would, therefore, take into account the Lamarck, given that natural selection has inconsistencies, such as the theory of transfer of fish to the mainland, because the lung was too complex to appear in a single random mutation.
Lamarck used the giraffe as an example of his thesis, primitive antelope, which he liked to burn the leaves of the trees, he stretched his neck verso l'alto con tutte le sue forze per arrivare al maggior numero di foglie possibile. Anche la lingua e le gambe si sarebbero allungate e tutte queste parti del corpo, di conseguenza, sarebbero diventate letteralmente un poco più lunghe, e questo allungamento si sarebbe trasmesso alla generazione successiva. La nuova generazione avrebbe avuto in partenza parti del corpo più lunghe e le avrebbe allungate ulteriormente e, poco per volta, l'antilope si sarebbe trasformata in giraffa. Lamarck assegnava una notevole importanza al ruolo attivo degli organismi nel modificarsi in risposta agli stimoli ambientali, e riteneva che l'uso di determinati organi, o parti di organi, provocasse modificazioni in modo che essi rispondessero meglio alle esigenze di sopravvivenza the animal, according to the principle "the function creates the organ". These changes would then be transmitted to the next generation, and the accumulation of acquired characteristics from generation to generation, would have led to the appearance of new species better adapted to the environment.
Lamarck had the merit of supporting the concept of evolution, against fixist conceptions of his time, claimed that living organisms are not immutable, but they become continuously and transformed to adapt to the environment and achieve a more efficient ability to survive that their changes accumulate over the generations, giving rise to new species.
Darwin, then gave una diversa spiegazione dei meccanismi dell'evoluzione biologica ma, nonostante che le ipotesi di Lamarck siano state in seguito dimostrate infondate... Lamarck rimane il precursore delle scienze evolutive, il primo scienziato ad affermare la trasformazione dei viventi.
La teoria dell'evoluzione delle specie è uno dei pilastri della biologia moderna. Nelle sue linee essenziali, essa è riconducibile oggi all'opera di Charles Darwin (che vide nella selezione naturale il motore fondamentale dell'evoluzione della vita sulla Terra) e alla genetica.
Darwin, biologo, geologo e zoologo britannico, celebre per aver formulato la teoria dell'evoluzione delle specie animali e vegetali per selezione naturale random mutation congenital hereditary (the origin of species), and have theorized the lineage of all primates (including humans) from a common ancestor (Descent of Man).
According to the theory of evolution, species have descended from one another, the problem was to try to Speg why the evolution occurred .
Darwin's theory was based on two fundamental principles:
1. the individual case for different birth (brilliant idea, since Darwin did not know about DNA and genetic mutations)
2. the environment selects individuals best suited , because they live longer and reproduce more, and then transmit le loro caratteristiche alla progenie.
La selezione naturale avviene soprattutto in caso di scarsezza di risorse. L'esempio riportato in tutti i libri è quello delle giraffe . Le giraffe derivano da animali con il collo molto più corto. Secondo la teoria di darwin, una giraffa con il collo più lungo è nata per caso; questo poteva anche essere un vantaggio modesto in caso di abbondanza di cibo, ma, nel momento in cui il cibo è diventato, per qualche motivo, più scarso, la giraffa con il collo più lungo ha potuto nutrirsi meglio, raggiungendo le foglie più in alto. Questo individuo ha vissuto più a lungo degli altri, ha generato un maggior numero di figli e ha trasmesso il collo lungo a un certo numero di essi. A loro volta queste giraffe con il collo più lungo, si sono nutrite di più e hanno generato più figli, trasmettendo loro questa caratteristica. Esiste anche un altro tipo di selezione molto importante: la selezione sessuale. Per esempio, molti potrebbero chiedersi qual è il vantaggio dei pesanti e voluminosi palchi dei cervi. Lì, di sicuro, non è stato l'ambiente a selezione quel carattere. Le femmine, però scelgono di accoppiarsi e riprodursi con gli animali con i palchi più voluminosi, quindi saranno questi gli individui che si riprodurranno e trasmetteranno le loro caratteristiche genetiche alla progenie.
Per entrare nel vivo della discussione l’evoluzione Darwinian evolution postulates that "practically all living beings, or at least all of their most interesting aspects are the result of the work of natural selection on random variation.
whether the general principles of evolutionary theory are consolidated in the scientific community, the secondary aspects of the theory are still widely discussed and are the subject of active research.
The definition of the concept of evolution has been a revolution in scientific thinking in biology, and has inspired numerous theories and models in other fields of knowledge.
However, when Darwin developed his theory, scientists knew little or nothing of the extraordinary complexity the living cell. The modern biochemistry, the study of life at the molecular level, revealed part of that complexity. He also raised serious objections and doubts about Darwin's theory ....
The alleged evolutionary process involves the gradual acquisition of useful features. Darwin knew his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection had to overcome a major obstacle when he said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists which can not be formed by many successive slight modifications, my theory would break down completely"
One of the main objections to the evolutionary model is that natural selection, the engine Darwinian evolution, it only works if there is something to choose: something that is useful at this time, not tomorrow. "
This raises a number of questions for scientists to be honest: "As we developed the reaction centers of photosynthesis? As the carriage began intramolecular? How did the biosynthesis of cholesterol? How does the retina began to be involved in the vision? How has the way of the signals of phosphoproteins? "" The very fact that none of these problems be addressed, if not resolved, it is very clear indication that Darwinism provides an approach which is inadequate for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems. "
If Darwin's theory can not explain the molecular basis of complex cells, such as may constitute a satisfactory explanation of the existence of millions of species that inhabit the earth?
As it may seem plausible Darwinian theory of evolution in the eyes of some scientists, in the end they must face the question: Even assuming that life forms have evolved by natural selection, how did life originate? In other words, the problem lies not in the survival of the fittest, but in the arrival of the fittest and the first! However, as indicated by his comments on the evolution of the eye, Darwin, the issue was not how he started life. He wrote: "The way in which a nerve becomes sensitive to light does not concern us more than we about the way in which life appeared for the first time."
Since the probability that evolution has produced the infinite variety and complexity of life forms are absolutely negligible, find it hard to believe that all this has evolved in the right direction by chance? You wonder how any creature could survive in the struggle for the survival of the fittest, while he was still evolving eyes, or fingers while he was forming a primitive sub-human body? You wonder how they fatto a sopravvivere le cellule se erano ancora incomplete e non funzionali?
Dovremmo credere che per puro caso l’evoluzione abbia creato anche un maschio e una femmina contemporaneamente, in modo da perpetuare la nuova specie. Come se non bastasse, dovremmo inoltre credere che il maschio e la femmina si siano evoluti non solo contemporaneamente, ma anche nello stesso luogo! Se non si incontravano, addio procreazione!
Di sicuro, credere che la vita esista in milioni di forme perfezionate come risultato di milioni di colpi di fortuna richiede una dose di credulità che ha dell’inverosimile!!!!
Il problema della teoria evolutiva è che manca il motivo, il meccanismo chemical, which generates the evolutionary trend and to make us understand how we can create systems that while changing seem to have an "irreducible complexity". This may seem a matter of logic does not matter if we admit that life is born by chance and a problem solved if we accept that life has been engineered by God in all its forms past, present and future! !
The theory of evolution is supported by studies of all kinds, from stratigraphic dating of fossils, the recent DNA testing, not to mention the evidence of continued viral evolution. Genetic mutations and natural selection is irrefutable phenomena that occur today.
I might add, without wanting to prosecute anyone, even just understand it ... that the current biological knowledge is enormous compared to those that were available to Darwin in the mid nineteenth century, thanks largely to the extraordinary developments in molecular biology over the last fifty years. Today we know that the majority of 'codons' of the genetic code are shared universally by all forms of life that most of the genomes of different from each other contains a large quantity of such non-functional structures (eg, repetitive DNA, pseudogenes, etc..), the levels of divergence between DNA sequences of different species are generally associated with a time of divergence from their common ancestor, and that genes involved nella regolazione dello sviluppo (Hox genes) sono condivisi da linee filetiche separatesi dal loro antenato comune centinaia di milioni di anni fa.
È chiaro che nessuna teoria è perfetta, se non altro a causa dei limiti umani e per la natura stessa della scienza, che tende a ricercare continuamente idee e ipotesi in grado di migliorare il nostro grado di conoscenze. In quest'ottica, qualsiasi biologo ragionevole non può che augurarsi che, magari fra pochi anni, uno scienziato ancora più brillante di Darwin possa fornire un quadro concettuale ancora più efficiente...
Esistono varie recenti teorie in merito:
1. alcuni ricercatori hanno proposto la teoria del “mondo a RNA”. Anziché argue that DNA, RNA and proteins have appeared simultaneously to produce life, they say that the RNA itself was the first spark of life. In the '80s, researchers discovered in the laboratory that certain RNA molecules could act as enzymes against themselves by splitting into two and then sew. It is therefore suggested that the RNA was the first molecule can self-replicate. With time, these RNA molecules have learned to form cell membranes and eventually the body would give rise to the RNA to DNA. Not all scientists, however, accept this scenario. Skeptics point out that "the theory of the RNA world. . . contains a flaw that is fatal because it does not explain where it is got the energy to power the production of the first RNA molecules. " And no researcher has ever found a piece of RNA that can replicate from scratch. Then there is to explain how RNA is made.
2. Another theory that some scientists have embraced is that our planet has been seeded with life from outer space.
The theory of evolution is supported by studies of all kinds, from stratigraphic dating of fossils, the recent DNA testing, not to mention the evidence of continued viral evolution. Genetic mutations and natural selection is irrefutable phenomena that occur today.
I might add, without wanting to prosecute anyone, even just understand it ... that the current biological knowledge is enormous compared to those that were available to Darwin in the mid nineteenth century, thanks largely to the extraordinary developments in molecular biology over the last fifty years. Today we know that the majority of 'codons' of the genetic code are shared universally by all forms of life that most of the genomes of different from each other contains a large quantity of such non-functional structures (eg, repetitive DNA, pseudogenes, etc..), the levels of divergence between DNA sequences of different species are generally associated with a time of divergence from their common ancestor, and that genes involved nella regolazione dello sviluppo (Hox genes) sono condivisi da linee filetiche separatesi dal loro antenato comune centinaia di milioni di anni fa.
È chiaro che nessuna teoria è perfetta, se non altro a causa dei limiti umani e per la natura stessa della scienza, che tende a ricercare continuamente idee e ipotesi in grado di migliorare il nostro grado di conoscenze. In quest'ottica, qualsiasi biologo ragionevole non può che augurarsi che, magari fra pochi anni, uno scienziato ancora più brillante di Darwin possa fornire un quadro concettuale ancora più efficiente...
Esistono varie recenti teorie in merito:
1. alcuni ricercatori hanno proposto la teoria del “mondo a RNA”. Anziché argue that DNA, RNA and proteins have appeared simultaneously to produce life, they say that the RNA itself was the first spark of life. In the '80s, researchers discovered in the laboratory that certain RNA molecules could act as enzymes against themselves by splitting into two and then sew. It is therefore suggested that the RNA was the first molecule can self-replicate. With time, these RNA molecules have learned to form cell membranes and eventually the body would give rise to the RNA to DNA. Not all scientists, however, accept this scenario. Skeptics point out that "the theory of the RNA world. . . contains a flaw that is fatal because it does not explain where it is got the energy to power the production of the first RNA molecules. " And no researcher has ever found a piece of RNA that can replicate from scratch. Then there is to explain how RNA is made.
2. Another theory that some scientists have embraced is that our planet has been seeded with life from outer space.
before concluding I would like to focus on one important concept, similar changes .. for example we think of the twins who share a womb before birth, then are exposed to the same environment, namely that identical twins have identical genetic makeup.
Once the twins were born, they are exposed to the external environment and behave in different ways, the most noticeable changes are the methylation of DNA: the environment impacts on the genes and then ... There is a branch of molecular biology called epigenetics , which studies the changes that the genetic material can be in life: that he studied everything that is around the genome, but that does not involve the gene sequence, means that even twins homozygous at the molecular level may reveal significant differences. Although the two have the same genes, recent evidence that one twin might be active in some who are not in the other. The twins are so identical genetically but not epigenetically: provision of chromosomes within the nucleus of every cell, the DNA wrapped around protein balls, could give rise to different consequences for a cell, because it assume complex 3D structures, depending on their biochemical characteristics.
Once the twins were born, they are exposed to the external environment and behave in different ways, the most noticeable changes are the methylation of DNA: the environment impacts on the genes and then ... There is a branch of molecular biology called epigenetics , which studies the changes that the genetic material can be in life: that he studied everything that is around the genome, but that does not involve the gene sequence, means that even twins homozygous at the molecular level may reveal significant differences. Although the two have the same genes, recent evidence that one twin might be active in some who are not in the other. The twins are so identical genetically but not epigenetically: provision of chromosomes within the nucleus of every cell, the DNA wrapped around protein balls, could give rise to different consequences for a cell, because it assume complex 3D structures, depending on their biochemical characteristics.
epigenetic modifications are considered natural events have always existed and - probably - are essential for adaptation and evolution of species, but if they arise in an improper manner can bring dire consequences, both on the health behavior human. numerous toxic and synthetic chemicals to which we are all commonly exposed, can cause epigenetic changes, such as pollutants, hormones, radioactive substances, drugs, viruses, bacteria, components of the diet. that said, the organisms live in an environment that is not constant, but they can develop methods to meet these changes (thanks to the controls at epigenetic).
There are genes that must always be controlled because their activities may be changed based on what is the environment outside the cell or the organism itself and are called regulatory genes, while genes more active in leaving aside the environmental conditions are constitutive.
When the environment suddenly becomes unfit for normal functioning of cells, the expression of genes regulated and this time even those constituents will be reduced by regulatory mechanisms such as DNA methylation and changes are made .... then the DNA is influenced by what around us ...
In my opinion, a true scientific community must be open to dialogue and debate with those who go "against" the dominant culture and have no attitude of superiority. We must be open to different and listen, not dictate dogmas of faith evolution ... I am "allergic to the tenets" of any type and origin, because science has always shown that theories can be refuted by concepts that are learned later .....
... come back on the concept of epigenetic perhaps because the source had been wrong ... sometimes devolves science ...
There are genes that must always be controlled because their activities may be changed based on what is the environment outside the cell or the organism itself and are called regulatory genes, while genes more active in leaving aside the environmental conditions are constitutive.
When the environment suddenly becomes unfit for normal functioning of cells, the expression of genes regulated and this time even those constituents will be reduced by regulatory mechanisms such as DNA methylation and changes are made .... then the DNA is influenced by what around us ...
In my opinion, a true scientific community must be open to dialogue and debate with those who go "against" the dominant culture and have no attitude of superiority. We must be open to different and listen, not dictate dogmas of faith evolution ... I am "allergic to the tenets" of any type and origin, because science has always shown that theories can be refuted by concepts that are learned later .....
... come back on the concept of epigenetic perhaps because the source had been wrong ... sometimes devolves science ...
However, the question you must answer is: it is my will that impact the phenotypic genes and generates changes that make me better suited to survive, or is it a random mutation that makes the individual better suited to survive that adapter? That is the giraffe's elongated neck because it has tried to reach the highest leaves requiring changes to its structure, and then DNA, or if he wanted one day a giraffe wakes up with a longer neck and then was able to survive better by natural selection? It 's the case to control your life? Think about it ... bon voyage! 
0 comments:
Post a Comment