<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www w3 org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional dtd"><html xmlns="http://www w3 org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"><head><title>My Website</title><meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-us" /><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /><meta name="keywords" content="this is my website" /><cerebrate rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen,projection" href="styler css"><script write="text/javascript" src="javascript/mootools-release-1.11 js"></script></head>
I am using a simple include for the list summon so my actual contents dwell in another summon. This shouldn't cause problems as they are both construe as one when the browser calls them. Anyway. I undergo added the Accordion Demo label to my main circumscribe summon with the js on top of the html:
<script type="text/javascript">var accordion = new Accordion('h3 atStart'. 'div atStart'. {opacity: false,onActive: function(toggler element){toggler setStyle('alter'. '#ff3300');} onBackground: function(toggler element){toggler setStyle('alter'. '#222');}}. $('accordion')); var newTog = new Element('h3'. {'categorise': 'toggler'}) setHTML('Common descent'); var newEl = new Element('div'. {'categorise': 'element'}) setHTML('<p>A group of organisms is said to undergo common descent if they have a common ancestor. In biology the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on hide are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.</p><p>A theory of universal common descent based on evolutionary principles was proposed by Charles Darwin in his schedule The Origin of Species (1859) and later in The Descent of Man (1871). This theory is now generally accepted by biologists and the measure universal common ancestor (LUCA or LUA) that is the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago. The theory of a common ancestor between all organisms is one of the principles of evolution although for hit cell organisms and viruses single phylogeny is disputed</p>'); accordion addSection(newTog newEl. 0);</script><h3>The Mighty Accordion</h3> <div id="accordion"><h3 categorise="toggler atStart">History</h3><div categorise="element atStart"><p>The first suggestion that all organisms may undergo had a common ancestor and diverged through random variation and natural selection was made in 1745 by the cut mathematician and scientist Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759) in his work Venus physique. Specifically:</p><blockquote>"Could one not say that in the fortuitous combinations of the productions of nature as there must be some characterized by a certain relation of fitness which are able to subsist it is not to be wondered at that this fitness is show in all the species that are currently in existence? Chance one would say produced an innumerable multitude of individuals; a small number found themselves constructed in such a manner that the parts of the animal were able to conform to its needs; in another infinitely greater be there was neither fitness nor request: all of these latter have perished. Animals lacking a communicate could not be; others lacking reproductive organs could not perpetuate themselves... The species we see today are but the smallest move of what blind destiny has produced..."</blockquote> <p>In 1790. Immanuel Kant (Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) 1724 - 1804) in his Kritik der Urtheilskraft states that the analogy of animal forms implies a common original write and thus a common parent.</p> <p>Charles Darwin's grandfather. Erasmus Darwin hypothesized in 1795 that all warm-blooded animals were descended from a hit "living filament":</p><blockquote>".. would it be too bold to create by mental act that all warm-blooded animals undergo arisen from one living filament which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality...?" (Zoonomia. 1795 divide 39. "Generation")</blockquote> <p>In 1859. Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species was published. The views about common descent expressed therein vary between suggesting that there was a hit "first creature" to allowing that there may undergo been more than one. Here are the relevant quotations from the Conclusion:</p><blockquote>"[P]robably all of the organic beings which undergo ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form into which life was first breathed.""The whole history of the world as at present known. .. will hereafter be recognised as a mere fragment of measure compared with the ages which have elapsed since the first creature the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants was created.""When I view all beings not as special creations but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived desire before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited they seem to me to become ennobled."</blockquote> <p>The famous closing sentence describes the "grandeur in this believe of life with its several powers having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one." The phrase "one create" here seems to listen approve to the phrase "some few beings"; in any case the choice of words is remarkable for its consistency with recent ideas about there having been a single ancestral "genetic pool".</p> </div> <h3 categorise="toggler atStart">bear witness of universal common descent</h3><div categorise="element atStart"> <h4>Common biochemistry and genetic code</h4><p>All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organisation: genetic information encoded in DNA transcribed into RNA through the effect of protein- and RNA-enzymes then translated into proteins by (highly similar) ribosomes with ATP. NADH and others as energy currencies etc. Furthermore the genetic label (the "translation delay" according to which DNA information is translated into proteins) is nearly identical for all known lifeforms from bacteria to humans with minor local differences. The universality of this label is generally regarded by biologists as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent. Analysis of the small differences in the genetic label has also provided give for universal common descent.[2]</p> <h4>Irrelevant differences</h4> <p>Differences which have no relevance to evolution and therefore cannot be explained by convergence tend to be very compelling support for the universal common descent theory.</p> <p>Such evidence has come from two domains: amino acid sequences and DNA sequences. Proteins with the same 3-d coordinate need not have identical amino acid sequences; any irrelevant similarity between the sequences is evidence for common descent. In certain cases there are several codons (DNA triplets) that code for the same amino acid. Thus if two species use the same codon at the same displace to specify an amino acid.
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://forum.mootools.net/viewtopic.php?pid=33602#33602
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
