Genetic Diversity

[Apokryltaros]

however if you involve a little magic, a little mystery, then anything is possible ;)

Magic is always the solution when someone is writing a story about werewolves. Its very difficult to go into scientific details when there is no shape shifting werewolves to study from.

Not yet, anyhow.

[Scott Gardener]

Now, now, there's always good, old-fashioned speculation.

[mielikkishunt]

and lots of imagination

[Rwolf]

I don't belive in the werewolf bite w/ my wolfies
Problem solved in my case!

Then again I'm developing 2 seperate worlds for the werewolves in my head...

[Rooster Urlakane]

yet there is still lots of things that we don't know about our bodies abilitities just like how we don't know what alowes us to think. And how we don't know why we have personalities, or if we have some sort of soul.
but how do we not know why we only use about 13% of our brain mass
and what sort of control would we have our our bodies, would we be able to rearange our cells to create new tissues then new organs if we did use all of the brain mass. Now I wonder if that is how parnormal powers derive from our little used areas in our skulls?

[Vilkacis]

but how do we not know why we only use about 13% of our brain mass and what sort of control would we have our our bodies, would we be able to rearange our cells to create new tissues then new organs if we did use all of the brain mass. Now I wonder if that is how parnormal powers derive from our little used areas in our skulls?

Wow, it's like this article was made for you.

-- Vilkacis

[outwarddoodles]

Lets see, what makes us think? Our brain! MY step mom is going for a PH.D. in Neuroligy, and thus defeintly know's more about brains then I do. Yet our concouis mind is very unique, and so occurs our personality. I'm not much into the 'souls' theory but the fact of our concious makes most people beleive that is what our soul is. I beleive it is truly just derived form the brain. (And this is always what makes my friend think what in the world wrong with me, I think that when you die, your brain is dead, your dead. Forever.)

I beleive that anything 'paranormal' is occured from more of a 'life energy', that exsists as our thoughts and well being. But ahh...when did this become this topic? Lets move back to what my origanal post was, thankyou.

[Scott Gardener]

You beat me to the punch. The "Only use 10% of the brain" myth is an astonishingly popular one, an urban legend more people believe than know to be false. (I'm afraid to ask how Jamie and Adam from MythBusters would disprove this myth!)

I personally to believe there is something to the paranormal, but I also believe that finding it should be done through facts and patterns, rather than through wishful thinking or the desire for it to be there. One has to be willing to be proven wrong. (Note that this is not intended as a criticism of Rooster Urlakane's post, just a comment I'm handing out there in general.)

It's hard to prove phenomena that by design insist on being unproved but equally resistant to disproving beyond all doubt. One almost wonders if this persistant ambiguity is by design. (A skeptic would just as easily accuse me of holding on to wishful thinking. But, those skeptics haven't followed me around and shared my life experiences. Besides, I'm not interested in convincing them, only finding out for myself and any who are willing to come along.)

[Aki]

but how do we not know why we only use about 13% of our brain mass

If the brain was that simple to understand, we'd be too simple to understand why.

[Apokryltaros]

but how do we not know why we only use about 13% of our brain mass
and what sort of control would we have our our bodies, would we be able to rearange our cells to create new tissues then new organs if we did use all of the brain mass. Now I wonder if that is how parnormal powers derive from our little used areas in our skulls?

Just as we can not have a computer use 100% of its memory, so, too, are we unable to use 100% of our brains, as to do so would require us to do everything our bodies are capable of at once. Voluntary and involuntary.

[Scott Gardener]

It could be argued that we may use 10% of the brain at any given time, but that's not the same as having only 10% of it functional at all. A computer may not use all its RAM, but having a Gig of RAM and only using the first 100 Megs or so (definitely NOT running Windows XP--maybe a Linux geek or something) is decidedly different from having 128 Megs installed and another 896 MB worth of RAM laying around in a box, waiting to be plugged in.

[Rooster Urlakane]

It could be that degeneration theory where in stead of slowly evolving we're slowly degenerating

[Apokryltaros]

It could be that degeneration theory where in stead of slowly evolving we're slowly degenerating

There's no such thing as "degeneration vs evolution."
That a population loses the use of a particular trait or organ does not mean that they're degenerating.
According to one evolutionary tree I once made, snakes are the most advanced tetrapod vertebrates, and according to another, the ocean sunfish is the most advanced bony fish.

[Rooster Urlakane]

The sciencetific community has started to admit that theories that they belived where absolutly correct has discovered that they must admit that there is to much evedence against them to keep them in effect. Such as the guess that the earth is billions of year old. They are now discovering that our earth could not be older than years mesured in the thousands. Eveloutionistis are constantly being contridicted and proven wrong. I, my self, know of at least ten theories that have been elimiated because of evedence against them. Evelution is basicly a relgion like Christanaty or Hinduism, they all have to be accepted by faith.
I personaly find too much evedence against evelution to believe it, so I follow some of the Christian theroies like degeneration. And athists are just plain arrogant to believe that there is nothing to believe.

[outwarddoodles]

Evelution is basicly a relgion like Christanaty or Hinduism, they all have to be accepted by faith.

No, Evolution is real. Animals and humans evolve to their surrondings, take the Galapigos isalnds for instance. All animals have evolved. WE change for better or worse everytime someone is born, their traits wil effect them, mainly for wild animals. Its not something you chose to beleive in or not. The world being created or slowly made is the choices, evelution is here.

And athists are just plain arrogant to believe that there is nothing to believe.

Ignorant and Arrogant was you too.

That post was ignorant. It wan't even the original topic anyway. This is a werewolf forum and not a religon forum. I want to see no more replies to this, no flaming, and to be back on topic. Flaming aint going to do nothing. If others just are not going to respect others or act ignorant these forums won't be to civil for long.

And when someone gives out an idea be respectful to it. Lets not call people things, lets not put in our religous values over such a topic.

And that wasn't pointed at anyone paticular.

Shoo!

[Vuldari]

...Such as the guess that the earth is billions of year old. They are now discovering that our earth could not be older than years mesured in the thousands.

What the heck are you talking about?

There is No Way that the earth was not so much as even a solid mass of rock and lava yet 900,000 years ago.

What are your sources for this "new discovery"?

Eveloutionistis are constantly being contridicted and proven wrong. I, my self, know of at least ten theories that have been elimiated because of evedence against them. Evelution is basicly a relgion like Christanaty or Hinduism, they all have to be accepted by faith.
I personaly find too much evedence against evelution to believe it, so I follow some of the Christian theroies like degeneration.

Hmmm...it is definately true that many "theories" that have been made in the past have turned out to be incorrect assumptions. That is, of course, why they are called scientific "theories" and not scientific "facts".

Since no one was making records of what was going on 500,000 or 1,000,000+ years ago, all we can really do is look at what is here, and guess how it got that way. In that respect, the opinions and "beliefs" of all religions, and the scientific community are equally valid, since neither can be absolutely prooven or dis-proven.

And athists are just plain arrogant to believe that there is nothing to believe.

...Excuse Me?!...

If you ask me, ARROGANCE is the belief that the words written in the pages of Ancient Religious-Texts (transcribed from the words spoken by human beings relating to what they "believed" to be the truth at the time) are ABSOLUTE, INDISPUTABLE truths.

...only to then turn around and say that the words spoken by the "WISE MEN" of modern years to be completely false.

Both are the words of men. ...both are equally capable of being mis-assumed, mis-informed or just plain Incorrect information.

I live by the belief that NOTHING is certain, and EVERYTHING can, and SHOULD be questioned. ...no matter WHO said it...

[outwarddoodles]

Vuldari. I just posted above that even though I can't have any say in what goes on I just dont approve of this. Don't reflect the other. Leave and go, or go converse somewhere else.

[Apokryltaros]

The scientific community has started to admit that theories that they belived where absolutely correct has discovered that they must admit that there is to much evidence against them to keep them in effect.

I must point out to you, that you are ignorant of how the scientific community functions. When scientists come up with a new theory, they don't throw the old theory away like so much garbage and start from ground-zero. The new theory explains how the phenoma that the old theory described work, as well as how other, related phenoma work that the old theory could not explain.

Such as the guess that the earth is billions of year old. They are now discovering that our earth could not be older than years mesured in the thousands. Evolutionists are constantly being contradicted and proven wrong. I, my self, know of at least ten theories that have been elimiated because of evidence against them. Evolution is basicly a relgion like Christianity or Hinduism, they all have to be accepted by faith.

The age of the Earth being 4.5 billion years is not a guess. It was achieved after over 200 years of geological and paleontological studies, and has been confirmed through over 50 years of radiometric dating, including moon rocks being radiologically dated at being around 4.5 billion years old.
I have never heard of any scientific reports from trustworthy scientists that claim, let alone state, that the world is only thousands of years old. The claim by Creationists, who, in my opinion, are as trustworthy as snake-oil salespeople, that the world is 6000 years old has been debunked by countless sources, including records from Mesopotamia, spanning 10,000 to 7,000 years ago, that fail to describe events such as the Great Flood, or the scattering of the races of the world at Babylon.
Furthermore, please state these so-called 10 theories that contradict Evolutionary Biology, as I know of no less than 20 theories which support it, including the speciation of the apple maggot fly, the descent and modification of trilobite species, and the domestication of animals, like goldfish and dogs. Merely claiming that you know of things that contradict Evolutionary Biology will never convince me.

I personally find too much evidence against evolution to believe it, so I follow some of the Christian theories like degeneration. And atheists are just plain arrogant to believe that there is nothing to believe.

First off, the "theory of degeneration" is not a theory, and has never been accepted as a valid theory, having long since dismissed as being a racist claim of racial superiority Christian Europeans over all other ethnic groups decades ago.
Before you claim that Evolutionary Biology is a religion, please do me a favor and KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION OF "RELIGION" IS, in that it's where one worships a divinity (God, for example), or a set of divinities, and adheres to various social protocols as defined by the divinity(ies)'s priesthood.
As far as I know, Evolutionary Biology fails to meet these criteria.
Furthermore, please don't be so arrogant so as to presume that all atheists are arrogant unbelievers, especially since many Christians also consider Evolution to be truth, also.

Furthermore, just between you and me, I'd rather think that I'm an advanced ape than to think that I'm being punished with death for crimes my legendary ancestors committed by a God who supposedly loves me.

[Vuldari]

Vuldari. I just posted above that even though I can't have any say in what goes on I just dont approve of this. Don't reflect the other. Leave and go, or go converse somewhere else.

We both began our posts by mentioning something that we thought was incorrect to call "false" (I referred to the age of the earth, and you commented on the existance of Evolution...), and then ended with a reason why we thought the conversation should end here. (...to avoid heated religious debates...and because the argument would be impossible to reslove...)

I'm done. I have no desire to have a discussion about "Creation vs. Evolution". Those kinds of discussions never end civily.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the main topic...hmmmmmm...

What was it again?

I have been pondering this for awhile....

If a werewolf bites a human it is injected it's werewolf DNA into the human. Then woul the newly bitten now have the same genetic wolf form as the werewolf that bit him? Same hair, structure, ETC. But not egxactly the same for not everything we have done is stored as information withen DNA. (scars or injuries for example.)
--Or would the person's individual DNA they already have form with the new werewolf genes and form as a whole new werewolf.
--If that person bites someone else will it pass the same stuff given to him or if the DNA had formed and created new DNA then do they pas on a whole new set of information.
--Being that werewolves wouldn't be so diverse and could the babies become deformed?

So to sum it up, are they the same wolf or do they somehow have whole new DNA information?

I think that the genetic heritage of the "Lycanthropy" would be seperate from the genetic traits of the Host, (regardless of whether they are BORN or INFECTED werewolves).

It would pass on its common traits like one parent of a new child, with the other half contributed by the host, so that the exact traits of the WOLF form would be a combination of the two.

[Example: If "Blonde Hair" and "Blue Eyes" are common in the Humans family heritage, and Most of the Werwolves in the Line of the one that bit him have "Black Fur" and "Yellow Eyes" , then there would be a good chance that his WOLF form would have either Black, Blonde, (or a pattern of both), FUR and either Blue, Yellow or Green Eyes.

Just like the child of any two mates of any given species...the end result will allways posess traits from both, while also developing new traits unique to itself.

...however, I think that only the traits of the WOLF line would be passed on afterward. So if the Green Eyed, Blonde and Black Furred werewolf bit someone else...only the Black hair and Yellow eyes influence would be passed on, and NOT his own Blue eyes and Blonde haired HUMAN heritage. IMHO ]

[Scott Gardener]

At the risk of flogging not only a dead horse, but a long-extinct eohippus:

The only reason evolution isn't called a fact is because religious fundamentalists have lobbied against doing so to government, because it contradicts their strict, literal interpretation of The Bible. Proof that Thomas Jefferson's seperation of church and state was and still is a good idea, if the Taliban didn't already drive that point home.

"Creationism" is offered as a "science" that insists that the literal interpretation of the Bible is true. It claims that a handful of fudged observations that appear to go against the mountain of evidence favoring evolution is enough to disprove the theory and prove their own model to be correct. Their model has numerous nit-pickable individual issues (like dinosaurs, the entire Cambrian era, and so forth), but the greatest core problem is that Creationists start with their theory and look for facts to fit the theory, rather than the other way around. It's the opposite of science.

[ChaosWolf]

Uh... I like werewolves. They're cool.

[Rooster Urlakane]

sorry I was not tring to make some large argument about evelution/creationism.
at least that wasn't my intent
lets all just get back on the original topic.

[Figarou]

Uh... I like werewolves. They're cool.

Me 2.

[Ochiba]

Uh... I like werewolves. They're cool.

Me 2.

Me 3

[Apokryltaros]

So, taking a different perspective of the infectious nature of lycanthropy, why not, instead of a virus causing lycanthropy, why not a mutagen?
That is, rather than worry about a virus injecting genetic materials, why not have a protein or enzyme that either changes the necessary genes, without having to worry about turning the person into a clone of the infector or having the genes be inserted in the wrong place and cause some colossally catastrophic cancer, etc, or cause the cellular structure to become altered, like, prions, but nowhere near as unpleasantly fatal.