Player: amort Subject: Structure/Function
what do you think of the correlation of somethings structure and its function (if you want: the things it is able to do) e.g. our hands:
Because of the structure we can grab, etc.
It also applies to chess, depending on the structure of your figures you are able to win/lose/get a better position etc.
So my question: Do you think structure determines function or is it the other way round?
Just to think a bit about it...||-|
| Newest | Newer | Older | Oldest|
|1 SminT||2008-07-09 15:48:12|
|function determines structure. If you look at a couple of examples, a house\'s structure is designed to best suit it\'s function. the kitchen is downstairs the dining room near it etc. then there is evolution, if the animals not functioning in the best way then mutation can happen and the structure of the creature changes to suit it\'s function. in chess you created the stucture of the peices for the function of winning, sadly this does not always happen||-|
|2 tjfitzgerald||2008-07-09 20:34:06|
|SminT, you do not have to have something not function in the best way for evolution or mutation to occur. Mutations occur spontaneously and a pretty amazing rate, it is very rare that a mutation becomes so significant that it actually causes an evolutionary leap. More often than not, the mutation will already exist before it is needed and only those creatures with the existing mutation will survive when that mutation is put to the test (there is a very specific genetic mutation that made some people immune/resistant to the plague when it swept Europe and just recently biologists have discovered that this mutation also applies to HIV resistance as well ... I don\'t remember all of the details but I will research it more if you would like more information on that example). But I agree with you that function determines the structure (just try reversing the functions of the Knights and Bishops in a game and see how the structure of the game changes due to the function of the pieces from their starting positions)||-|
|3 SminT||2008-07-09 23:24:29|
|i was meaning not function in a lose term like when giraffes had smaller necks they were not functioning at there best ability as they couldn\'t get to the tops of the tress which is not really not functioning but it\'s new function requires new structure if you get what i mean, and i never meant any evolution jumps. know quite abit about evolution sorry wasn\'t clear in first part||-|
|4 paupackard||2008-07-10 01:50:02|
|Structure also limits functionality. Structure obeys certain rules (physics, or the rules of chess) and has to work with the pieces it already has ( chess pieces, or prexisting organs and body tissues). In biology there\'s diferent levels of structure (body parts and organs, the inner structure of organs like the structure of our nervous system, genetic structure, chemical structure...) All of these structures limit functionality and and they limit the future possibilities of change and evolution. In chess the activity of a piece is limited by the position of other pieces, and in biology the evolution of certain trait is limited by the genetic structure of the organism. Thats why you generally find chess pieces and evolutionary traits in sub-optimum positions that concord with the limitations of reality. ( Atleast my chess pieces are usually in suboptimum positions)||-|
|5 amort||2008-07-10 01:56:42|
|But mutations first of all influence the structure of a body part or a chemical reaction in the organism because the genetic code gets expressed into proteins which have certain structures, so I would say in case of evolution mutations causes a certain structure which then determines the function, which is then in favour or against the organisms adaptation.||-|
|6 amort||2008-07-10 02:08:22|
|I agree with you paupackard, I also find it interesting that the structure/function aspect applies to almost anything, from biological systems to chess to a simple glass (the structure is perfect to keep water away from following the gravity force) to many other..||-|
|7 paupackard||2008-07-10 12:24:47|
|Even mutations are limited by structure. The chemical structure of DNA makes certain mutations highly probable, and others extremely improbable. On a higher level and without which adaptation doesn\'t make sense, is the structure of the ecosystem, which will determine if a particular trait is adaptative or not.||-|
|8 amort||2008-08-06 06:10:49|
|But the combination of nucleotids in a regions that codes for a certain protein is defined during the process of DNA replication. The \"mistakes\" while copying the DNA affect the next protein biosynthesis, which allows new protein structures-> New traits
which are then under evolutionary pressures of the ecosystem (as pauckbard mentioned). And if this charactertraits are in favor for reproduction and providing the amount of energy for it, then it becomes higher probable that this system \"survives\"
I think its pretty comlicated and we still don\'t know exactly how it all emerged chronologically!||-|
|9 ejroyal||2008-10-17 12:46:24|
Or if it emerged at all since no one was there to witness it happening to begin with. Scientific methodology restricts what science can apply to.||-|
| Newest | Newer | Older | Oldest|