{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/5/2015 11:24:12 AM
1
That's not genetic entropy or at least, it's not why I meant. I may be using the wrong term but I'm fairly sure I'm not. I agree that arguments is rubbish.
Entropy is basically the degrading of DNA over the generations. In humans there are 300 detrimental degradations of the human genome per generation and they are cumulative. They build up and up and eventually there are too many and it leads to extinction. I think the number was something like 80 thousand years before the problems build up to the point of extinction.
English
-
Edited by Britton: 5/5/2015 1:14:13 PMAh. I see. Well I suppose that will definitely be a problem in humans. We aren't subject to natural selection like animals are. We preserve those "bad" genes through modern medicine, and they get passed on. As for how that would apply in general, I guess 99% of all species to ever exist being extinct should mean something.
-
Well actually, the degradations are 'invisible' to natural selection, so you don't generally notice them util they reach a lethal level. It's the same with the shortening of telomeres.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/5/2015 4:39:23 PMBut what evidence is there that happens uniformly over time across an entire species?
-
Edited by My Name Is John: 5/5/2015 4:57:00 PMJohn Stanford conducted research on it, it'll be online somewhere but I'm not sure where I'm afraid. I think it was average
-
I found a thesis on it. But no experiments.
