prove me wrong on evolution

[Endless]

JerryL,
Let me ask you this question. Is the difference in intelligence between the chimp and the human anything to do with the chimp lacking genes which enable its brain to develope to the capacity for intelligence of the human brain? Or is it merely that the chimp lacked a decent education? Can the chimps accomplish what humans have accomplished?

Now you tell me whether rearrangement of combinations of DNA will give the chimp the capacity for intelligence that the human has - maybe the chimp will actually then be able to speak English...or maybe you would like to argue that it lacked a decent education in english to enable it to speak. Can chimps repeat words like a parrot can? Does this make the parrot more intelligent - it afterall has a bird brain. Do chimps have a sophisticated spoken language as do the humans?
There is a reason for the differences and unless you argue that all this is due to a lack of education then you have to admit that the difference lies in the genes.

Do you think genetic similarity is enough to show or to provide proof of common descent or close relatives? It's not the similarity that counts it is the differences!
Mice share around 85% of their genes with humans, Yeast shares around 46 %, Fruit flies share around 60% and bananas share around 50%.

Humans have alleles of genes that other humans do not - which is where the blue eyes come from etc. Probably true that some humans are lacking genes that other humans have - but humans are 99.9% identical with regard to their genes (alleles of genes do not count in this as far as i remember).

Note also that not all horses have the same number of chromosomes (much less the same number of genes). Przewalski's horses have 66 while domestic horses have 64. Despite this, they can cross-breed and produce fertile offspring.

Are you stating this to lay the foundation for dropping a bombshell that chimps and humans can cross-breed?? :biglaugh:I don't think so somehow - and there's a good reason why we can't. Thankfully!

The actual similarity between chimps and humans with regard to the sequenced genome will probably be around 96% if this paper published in nature is anything to go by:

The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005. “Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome,” Nature 437:69–87.

We have recently sequenced the entire human genome, but have only recently sequenced the chimp (2005). Initial studies of the genetic sequence outlined in this paper show that we have around 35 million bases which are different, around 45 million bases which humans have which chimps do not and around 45 million bases which the chimp has which humans do not. Certainly the paper calls the 96% similarity 'overwhelming proof' of the human-chimp common ancestory, but then so would 90% and maybe even 85% if you accept evolutionary theory.

The point i'm making here is that even with a similarity of 96% in our DNA the differences caused by difference in genes, is what makes us humans so different to chimps. It is the differences which are more important than the similarities.

I came across this article in a newspaper which i thought was funny - at the time science was under an impression of around 99% similarity of the two genomes, which was incorrect.

 

[JerryL]

Let me ask you this question. Is the difference in intelligence between the chimp and the human anything to do with the chimp lacking genes which enable its brain to develope to the capacity for intelligence of the human brain? Or is it merely that the chimp lacked a decent education? Can the chimps accomplish what humans have accomplished?

It's the same kind of difference that gives me a nose with a narrow bridge and my friend Muhammed a nose with a wide bridge... the same thing that gives me blue eyes and him brown eyes. It's the same cause as the Greeks having more hair than the Sweeds, and the Ethopians having darker skin.

But speaking of different genes, I lack the gene for eye coloration and my friend Talisa has a different gene than I do for red-cell production. Is she macro-evoloved from me? Our genes are different.

Now you tell me whether rearrangement of combinations of DNA will give the chimp the capacity for intelligence that the human has - maybe the chimp will actually then be able to speak English...or maybe you would like to argue that it lacked a decent education in english to enable it to speak. Can chimps repeat words like a parrot can? Does this make the parrot more intelligent - it afterall has a bird brain. Do chimps have a sophisticated spoken language as do the humans?

Actually, the reason that chimps cannot speak is because of a differently shaped larynix. Chimps most certainly can be taught language. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=chimp+taught+sign+language

Is a mute person macroevoloved? They have the same lack of ability to speak English that a chimp has (moreso actually) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=13096725&dopt=Abstract)

There is a reason for the differences and unless you argue that all this is due to a lack of education then you have to admit that the difference lies in the genes.

Absolutely it's in the genes, just like sickle-cell and blue eyes is in the genes; you have denied this to be macroevolution.

Do you think genetic similarity is enough to show or to provide proof of common descent or close relatives? It's not the similarity that counts it is the differences!

It's a great number of things. My particular favorite is is looking at the genetic drift in midocondria. Since these are entirely unrelated to morphology, the fact that their similarity falls in line with the evolutionary tree is extremely telling.

While I'm mentioning that; how do you explain the similarity of the DNA of midocondria to be directly related to distance on the evolutionary tree? After that we can discuss stratification of fossils (recall that evolution was established long before DNA testing), the lack of humanity more than a million years ago (and believe me when I tell you I'm much stronger on dry science like radiometric dating and geology than I am in biology) and the like; all of which defy another evidenced explanation.

Humans have alleles of genes that other humans do not - which is where the blue eyes come from etc. Probably true that some humans are lacking genes that other humans have - but humans are 99.9% identical with regard to their genes (alleles of genes do not count in this as far as i remember).

And Chimps are 98.4% similar with only 50-200 genes (out of more than 100,000) difference.

Exactly what percentage is "macroevolution" and how did you arrive at that figure? 0.2%? 0.5%? 1%?

Are you stating this to lay the foundation for dropping a bombshell that chimps and humans can cross-breed?? :biglaugh:I don't think so somehow - and there's a good reason why we can't. Thankfully!

No, I saying this to destroy your assertion that a different number of genes is a drastic change that cannot happen. You've asserted it as an insurmountable barrier (without any justifiation for why I might add).

Are horses and horses macroevolved as they have a different number of genes and chromosomes?

The point i'm making here is that even with a similarity of 96% in our DNA the differences caused by difference in genes, is what makes us humans so different to chimps. It is the differences which are more important than the similarities.

"so different"? What is "so different"? I would think that a creature with legs on it's head and 4 wings was more different from one with antenna on it's head and 2 wings than we are from Chimps; but you've asserted that 4-winged flies with legs on their heads are not "macroevolution" and that chimp-human is.

I would also think, speaking genetically, that having 2 more chromosomes (horses to horses) was "more different" than having one more chromosome (human to chimp); but again you assert that horses are the same "kind" and humans and chimps are not.

Your assertions don't seem to survive any scrutiny... let's review.

Macroevoution = different number of genes: Well, Prezwalski's horses and domestic horses have a different number, so do I and my friend Talisa; but you assert that these are not macroevolution, thereby refuting yourself.

Macroevolution = (amount unstated) percentage difference (that humans are the same as humans as they are 99.9% identical, but humans and chimps are not the same as they are 98.4% identical); but then you seem to believe that horses and horses are the same, when they are more different than that... again self-refuting.

 

[Endless]

Jerry,
Your understanding of the fundementals of genetics is too basic. I never ever said that the difference in the number of genes = macroevolution. What i did say was that if you could show that the human had genes which the chimp does not have - i'm obviously not talking about alleles here, since they are different types of the same gene, i'm talking about completely different genes. Then it stands to reason that from the common ancestor those genes had to come into being in some way ie. via mutation adding bases and giving rise to the novel genes. Then that is what i term as macro evolution because it is a mechanism that will get you from the first simple organism on earth to all organisms we now have.

However if for example the we observe the beak of a bird increasing in size due to natural selection on a given population then we know that the mechanism of natural selection caused evolution. The population now has an increased beak size. However can you turn around and say to someone, look this is evidence of evolution, look at the change, this is proof of the theory of evolution. No you cannot, because this evolution occurred as a result of natural selection acting on existing genetic material - evolution occurred via natural selection. Therefore this is proof only that natural selection can cause evolution, but natural selection acting on existing genetic material will not cause the first simple organism to evolve to all the organisms we have on this earth today. So it is not proof of the theory of evolution.
It is exactly the same as genetic drift - we see it acting on existing genetic material, examples of evolution by genetic drift do not prove that the first simple organism could evolve to all the organisms we now have.
What about mutation knocking out genes - causing variation that way? Examples of this do not prove evolution or support the first simple organism evolving to all others, because by only knocking out genes the first simple organism could not evolve to all others. What about hampering genes, such as sickle cell anaemia - example of evolution, but does it support evolution from the first simple organism to all others? No it doesn't because by simply hampering genes you will not get anywhere.

So what is the only mechanism that without which you cannot get evolution from the first simple organism to all others? It is a mechanism as a result of mutation which brings into existance novel genes, genes with a function that the first simple creature has never had before, which it can use to perform a new task or obtain a new structure - ie. becoming more complex. This has never been observed to happen and studied by science. So the critical mechanism is still absent of examples. Why should it not have been observed? We have labs working with bacteria with high replication rates, we can mutate them at a very high rate, we can control the selection to specifically choose those that achieve this mechanism, but we have failed.

There are a number of reasons why i believe we have failed and i started to talk about those in my first postings, however it was going over heads. I personally don't believe it can happen - life is too complex for a random new gene to slot in perfectly with the already working system without putting the creature at a disadvantage that natural selection will act upon and remove the mutation. But that's just my own opinion.

Evolution's strongest evidence lies in the fossil record and the gradual changes look convincing, but until you understand how life works at the genetic level, how things change, how things can get bigger or smaller without the mechanism that is essential for evolution of the simple organism into all others, then you can start to look at the fossil record in a new light. It's true that the fossil record is full of holes, it's a far from perfect picture.
Dawkins in the blindwatchmaker wrote the following:

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"...some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too...the major gaps are real, they are true imperfections in the fossil record...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) would reject this alternative."[/font]

He then goes on to say that these gaps are exactly what they would expect - which is rubbish if they are due to imperfections in the fossil record. There are more gaps than 'links' that would seem to show evolution.

Creationists will also dispute the dating of the strata and as a result the dating of fossils. But all that is probably for another time and another place.

 

[JerryL]

i'm talking about completely different genes. Then it stands to reason that from the common ancestor those genes had to come into being in some way ie. via mutation adding bases and giving rise to the novel genes. Then that is what i term as macro evolution because it is a mechanism that will get you from the first simple organism on earth to all organisms we now have.

I'm well aware of that, and it's pretty simple to do mutationally. The most obvious way would be to replicate an existing gene or chromosome and then modify one.

Another option would be for an existing, active gene to mutate to activate an otherwise inactive section of "junk DNA" (which is the majority of the chain).

I'm not aware of an entirely new gene that people have that Chimps do not. Do you believe that chimps could evolve into people via "microevolution"?

However if for example the we observe the beak of a bird increasing in size due to natural selection on a given population then we know that the mechanism of natural selection caused evolution.

That works well for adjusting averages. It does not, however, work well for creating "longer than the longest" beaks... nor "shorter than the shortest beaks". You would require that the initial population ran the entire gambit from longest to shortest and that selected traits were simply trimmed out.

So, were "original dogs" variable between St.Bernard and Jack-Russell Terrier? Can you show me a single dog that has all those genes?

So you still require mutation for "microevolution", though I don't know why you are rehashing it when such mutation and speciation is an observed event.

However can you turn around and say to someone, look this is evidence of evolution, look at the change, this is proof of the theory of evolution. No you cannot, because this evolution occurred as a result of natural selection acting on existing genetic material - evolution occurred via natural selection. Therefore this is proof only that natural selection can cause evolution, but natural selection acting on existing genetic material will not cause the first simple organism to evolve to all the organisms we have on this earth today. So it is not proof of the theory of evolution.

Do you realize how schtzophrenic this paragraph is? It's more-or-less a straw-man fallacy where you first prop up your own proof for evolution then attack your proof.

Yes, you could create distinct homogenious populations from a heterogenious control group. If, for example, one group of Rotweilder breeders started focusing on their thinnest dogs and another group on their bulkiest; then one group would end up as thin as the thinnest of the current group, and the other as thick as the thickest of the current group.

Of coruse, you could do the same thing by pulling the thinnest and thickest of your heterogenious control group and desplaying them as-is.

To get new traits (say a fly with four wings) requires changes in the DNA. This is been directly observed happening. Without changes in the DNA, it would be impossible to determine genetically that a sample of American Goatsbeard was not actually a European Goatsbeard, because the European ones would have all the same genes and alliels as the American ones (though perhaps not vice versa).

So we can prove mutation simply enough; we've watched it happen. We can prove natural selection easy enough, we've watched it happen. We can prove inheritence easily enough, we've watched it happen.

Where does that leave us?

It leaves us with you claiming "but for magical, unexplained reasons; you can't get a DNA change that would cause a new gene". That is, of course, silly pre facia and you've offered no support for this alledged limitation of DNA mutation.

It is exactly the same as genetic drift - we see it acting on existing genetic material, examples of evolution by genetic drift do not prove that the first simple organism could evolve to all the organisms we now have.

So what is the fundamental difference between a yeast and a person? It's the number of base-pairs in the DNA strand, and the actual pairs that occur. To mutate from one to the other we must identify mechanisms which can effect both of these changes.

Can mutation change the number of base-pairs in a DNA strand? Yes, it can. How do we know this? We've watched it happen.

Can mutation change the actual pairs (turn a GA into a TC)? Yes it can. How do we know this? We've watched it happen.

My positive assertions to establish it "can happen" have been met. My proofs that it did happen involve midocondria and modern biodiversity and comparitive DNA and the fossil record.

But here you are making a positive assertion that a known, functional mechanism for latering DNA (mutation), has limitations for which there is no evidence. Where is the support for these claims? You seem mostly intent on trying to reverse the burden of proof.

What about mutation knocking out genes - causing variation that way? Examples of this do not prove evolution or support the first simple organism evolving to all others, because by only knocking out genes the first simple organism could not evolve to all others. What about hampering genes, such as sickle cell anaemia - example of evolution, but does it support evolution from the first simple organism to all others? No it doesn't because by simply hampering genes you will not get anywhere.

The Sickle-Cell gene gives resistance to malaria. What is "hampering"?

Which part of "creating a new gene" requires a step not established to occur through mutation? Adding pairs or modifying them? Where is this magical limiting factor?

So what is the only mechanism that without which you cannot get evolution from the first simple organism to all others? It is a mechanism as a result of mutation which brings into existance novel genes, genes with a function that the first simple creature has never had before, which it can use to perform a new task or obtain a new structure - ie. becoming more complex.

You seem to set two criteria for "novel new gene". One is that it must not have existed before, and the other is that it must do something different than before. I'll satisfy both seperately.

Downs Syndrom occurs when there is a new Chromosome (that's a collection of *many* genes).
Sickle-Cell Anemia occurs when one of the genes related to red-cell production does something "novel".

Again, where is your magic limiting factor?

This has never been observed to happen and studied by science. So the critical mechanism is still absent of examples. Why should it not have been observed? We have labs working with bacteria with high replication rates, we can mutate them at a very high rate, we can control the selection to specifically choose those that achieve this mechanism, but we have failed.

We've plunked new genes in old animals repeatedly (glow-in-the-dark mice for example, or any of the GM foods). I don't think you know what you are talking about.

life is too complex for a random new gene to slot in perfectly with the already working system without putting the creature at a disadvantage that natural selection will act upon and remove the mutation. But that's just my own opinion.

and it's one contra-indicated by the physical evidence.

Evolution's strongest evidence lies in the fossil record and the gradual changes look convincing, but until you understand how life works at the genetic level, how things change, how things can get bigger or smaller without the mechanism that is essential for evolution of the simple organism into all others, then you can start to look at the fossil record in a new light.

You mean like when the midocondrial DNA was so precisly different that you can tell where something is on an evolutionary tree simply by looking at its midocondria and never having to look at the animal itself? Yes, that was illuminating.

It's true that the fossil record is full of holes, it's a far from perfect picture.

Well duh. OTOH, it's a very compelling picture.

Darwin looks at modern biodiveristy and comes up with evolution.
Palentologists find a fossil record and find out that it fills in and supports evolution.
Geologists date the fossil record and find out that it supports evolution.
We discover protien comparison (that % similar you were quoting earlier) and discover that the similarities match what you would expect based on evolution (things farther on the evolutionary tree had more dissimliar protiens).
We discover genetic desieses and find out that they fall in lines along the evolutionary tree (you can usually go back and see where it first popped up and most every later form has it).
We discover DNA and, lo and behold, the DNA similarities match the fossil record and the theory of evolution.
We discover Midocondrial DNA, and WOW, that matched evolution and the evolutionary tree too.

One discovery after another, most made long after evolution was established, establish evolution. There is no alternate theory with even a whisp of physical evidence... and the support for evolution is staggering.

 

[Fade]

Well duh. OTOH, it's a very compelling picture.

Darwin looks at modern biodiveristy and comes up with evolution.
Palentologists find a fossil record and find out that it fills in and supports evolution.
Geologists date the fossil record and find out that it supports evolution.
We discover protien comparison (that % similar you were quoting earlier) and discover that the similarities match what you would expect based on evolution (things farther on the evolutionary tree had more dissimliar protiens).
We discover genetic desieses and find out that they fall in lines along the evolutionary tree (you can usually go back and see where it first popped up and most every later form has it).
We discover DNA and, lo and behold, the DNA similarities match the fossil record and the theory of evolution.
We discover Midocondrial DNA, and WOW, that matched evolution and the evolutionary tree too.

One discovery after another, most made long after evolution was established, establish evolution. There is no alternate theory with even a whisp of physical evidence... and the support for evolution is staggering.

This is the cherry on top of a brilliant post. Great stuff JerryL :clap

 

[Endless]

JerryL,
It is impossible to discuss evolution with you because you do not understand the basics of how genetics work, you therefore will not be able to understand the complexities involved, nor be able to examine the mechanism of evolution as it must have occurred at a genetic level.

First of all its Mitochondria not midochondria. Second of all, this is laughable:

I wrote:
This has never been observed to happen and studied by science. So the critical mechanism is still absent of examples. Why should it not have been observed? We have labs working with bacteria with high replication rates, we can mutate them at a very high rate, we can control the selection to specifically choose those that achieve this mechanism, but we have failed.

You wrote:

We've plunked new genes in old animals repeatedly (glow-in-the-dark mice for example, or any of the GM foods). I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Ok, so you're telling me that the mechanism of evolution of which i was talking about above is supported by scientists cutting out an existing gene and putting it into another genome? :biglaugh:Yeah, that makes sense.

I'm well aware of that, and it's pretty simple to do mutationally. The most obvious way would be to replicate an existing gene or chromosome and then modify one.
Another option would be for an existing, active gene to mutate to activate an otherwise inactive section of "junk DNA" (which is the majority of the chain).

It is not a pretty simple thing to do mutationally! I've just told you in my last reply that it has never been observed to happen. Mutation has never brought into existance a novel gene with a new function that fitted into a creature's already existing biochemical pathways.

To get new traits (say a fly with four wings) requires changes in the DNA. This is been directly observed happening. Without changes in the DNA, it would be impossible to determine genetically that a sample of American Goatsbeard was not actually a European Goatsbeard, because the European ones would have all the same genes and alliels as the American ones (though perhaps not vice versa).

Yes, requires changes, but not as a result of mutation necessarily. Let me give you this example. We have a herd of goats from europe, i divide them in two - one half i send to the sahara, the other half to greenland. The environment has changed therefore selection will now remove some genes from the ones in the sahara over time and remove others from the goats in greenland. Throw in a few mutations that disrupt various genes in both halves of the herd and i guarrentee that down the line the goats will be different genetically, and their differences won't be allelic differences.
Evolution. But this isn't evolution that would cause the first simple creature to evolve to all other creatures today.

So we can prove mutation simply enough; we've watched it happen. We can prove natural selection easy enough, we've watched it happen. We can prove inheritence easily enough, we've watched it happen.

Where does that leave us?

It leaves us with you claiming "but for magical, unexplained reasons; you can't get a DNA change that would cause a new gene". That is, of course, silly pre facia and you've offered no support for this alledged limitation of DNA mutation.

It leaves us nowhere with regard to being able to say one way or another that the first simple creature could have evolved to all others - what we observe is not proof of this mechanism, because we have never observed mutation bringing into being new genes with novel functions that the creature did not have before. The support of this alledged limitation of DNA mutation is that it has been tried again and again to be shown in laboratories but has never once occurred. This with bacteria who replicate extremely quickly - never been observed. Now what does that tell you JerryL - this simple process that you think it is. Why hasn't it been observed if it is as simple as you make out?

You seem to set two criteria for "novel new gene". One is that it must not have existed before, and the other is that it must do something different than before. I'll satisfy both seperately.

Downs Syndrom occurs when there is a new Chromosome (that's a collection of *many* genes).
Sickle-Cell Anemia occurs when one of the genes related to red-cell production does something "novel".

Downs Syndrome is as a result of duplication - there is nothing new about the genes, plus people with this syndrome are sterile.
Sickle-cell Anaemia is as a result of an impaired function - it no longer does its job correctly. People heterozygous (have one good gene and one bad gene) can survive only because they have the unmutated gene - if they have two mutated genes, then they are in serious trouble, malaria or no malaria.

 

[Fade]

Yes, requires changes, but not as a result of mutation necessarily. Let me give you this example. We have a herd of goats from europe, i divide them in two - one half i send to the sahara, the other half to greenland. The environment has changed therefore selection will now remove some genes from the ones in the sahara over time and remove others from the goats in greenland. Throw in a few mutations that disrupt various genes in both halves of the herd and i guarrentee that down the line the goats will be different genetically, and their differences won't be allelic differences.
Evolution. But this isn't evolution that would cause the first simple creature to evolve to all other creatures today.

Yes, it is. Just give it time.

 

[Fade]

Did a google for positive mutations and found this blog entry

http://gutterninja.blogspot.com/2004/06/obligatory-ubertot-post.html

I suppose it doesn't count as novel gene mutation but I thought it was funny

 

[Ceridwen018]

Mutation has never brought into existance a novel gene with a new function that fitted into a creature's already existing biochemical pathways.

...I would say that that depends on how you define "novel gene." Obviously, a mutation is not going to spontaneously create a brand new gene out of cytoplasm or something, and just tack it onto the end of a chromosome; that's not the way mutations work. Mutations can only occur to existing genes, and on that I think we can all agree. That said, if a mutation affects a gene in such a way that that gene starts creating a different protein, or that the protein that that gene made begins to interact differently with other proteins, would that not be a "novel change"? Technically, the gene itself is not new, so much as its just an onld mutated gene, but is that just a game of semantics anyway?

because we have never observed mutation bringing into being new genes with novel functions that the creature did not have before.

Actually we have, but I think the problem you may be having here is that you're thinking of gene functions on too large a scale. We are taught in school about "tall genes" and "blue eyed genes" and "genes that give humans five fingers," when in reality things are much smaller than that. think "molecular" with me for a moment. Genes code for proteins that do specific jobs, obviously. I do not have brown hair because I have the "brown hair gene", I have brown hair because my genes make a certain protein that then interacts with other proteins and other environmental influences, thus producing brown hair. If a gene mutates and begins producing a new protein, or its usual protein begins to interact differently with other proteins and the environment, as far as genes go, that could be considered a "function that the creature did not have before." My future children are not at risk for having fire-breathing tails just ebcause they have a mutated gene, or something like that, do you see what I'm saying?

As an example of changes that can occur when genes mutate and begin to perform new functions, lactose tolerance is considered to be a mutation. Got milk?

 

[roli]

There is plenty of evidence supporting the fact that species evolve. Just because this evidence doesn't support the false idea of how evolution works in your head, doesn't mean that it doesn't support evolution. The geological evidence alone should be sufficient to please any logical thinking person.

There is 100% proof scientifically that we evolved according to the true definition of evolution Evolution =[n] a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "
[n] (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
But that is not what evolutionists stand by, they take it 1 step further to support their own bias agenda and say from non living matter came living matter and from that living organism or species came several different kinds of species,something totally contrary to the DNA make-up in each living oragainism . That in itself is a play on words not to mention unscientific.
2 humans to exchange DNA are of the same species and is normal behavior ,try a animal and a human having intercourse what would that produce ,it would'nt
Apparently by your attitude and overtone shows you to be more then likely an evolutionist and from that stand point I respect your underlying definition of "evolution" .
Sorry to disappoint you, I comprehend the fact that we evolve and progress from stage to stage.

]From the way you write this, I can already see that you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about. When you are describing something like this, be sure to do it correctly and use the correct scientifical terms.

I never professed to be an acclaimed scientist as yourself but do have some knowledge and common sense and have read several articles from renown philosophers,scientists and evolutionists who have agreed that to think we evolved from nothingness is absurd to say the least, Darwin even said " to think that the eye came about by natural selection is absurd"

]It usually is anything but pretty you say, but that doesn't change the fact that beneficial mutations do occur and that there has been plenty of time for this small ratio of beneficial mutations to cause the diversity of life we see now. You are seriously confused about the way adaptation has to be interpreted, and about how

Mutations could be beneficial I suppose but the question that should be asked,"are they normal occurences that are meant to take place in the cell structure"?
I beg to differ

[QUOTEQUOTE=Opethian]]random chance works. Maybe you should look up some threads on how evolution actually works because clearly you do not understand

.

Random chance might work for you in order to support your lifestyle but please tell me what is the random chance you will develope wings or antennas,or fish will adapt legs or lungs,maybe because it is not in your DNA structure.
Maybe tonight you will grow a second eye or head or the baby you produce someday will have 6 fingers , that is random chance but is not within the DNA to produce such abnormalities.That by definition is evolution but surely not normally beneficial.
Please show me some mutations that are beneficial, I would be interested to see your definition of mutations.

There are tons of evidence of evolution in fossils, what are you talking about? It never stopped, it is a continuous process, if you actually understood it you would know this. And pleaaaase learn to spell!

On the contrary,I do understand how it works within it's true definition but disagree to the spin the evolutionists place on the origin of life from inanimate objects, to sophisticated creatures as humans ,some humans that is.That is not evolution, but a hypothesis and a theory if not a fantasy.

 

[roli]

Opethian

In continuation of my last reply Yes there are evidences of evolution in fossils,my mistake, I did not clarify that the definition I was assuming to use was from the evolutionists dictionary, but to clarify what I meant was that there is no evidence of fish evolving into reptiles,reptiles into mammals and or humans. I hope you can piece what I am saying together
If you can find any evidence please enlighten me.

Sorry for the grammar errors,again I appreciate your concern and interest in wanting me to learn how to spell properly but that is just another jab and I will graciously contain myself from indulging in the same derogatory staements.

Opethian

you say it is the blueprint of all living organisms, but I take it you have no clue as to how it works exactly? Mutations are changes of DNA,

I said if you would recall my thread ,that if cells are altered or changed naturally through toxins,pollutants ,chemicals,poisons etc, that inturn violates certain laws or perimeters within our physiological makeup and they cause the cell to mutate.
That by the way is how all living cells function , that being under certain absolute laws ,

That might not sit well with those who don't believe in absolutes but absolutes are essential attributes in the healthy function of any living orgainism not to mention all things that consist of matter, but I don't know what I'm talking about,right!

Can cells be altered by scientific research and lab testing within a controlled enviroment and remain stable,possibly but not natures intention.

Opethian
you don't even have an understanding of this simple definition and yet you are discussing something that is based upon a simple aspect you don't understand.
My god, did you skip your biology lessons in high school???

GO READ!!! and not in your bible!!!

[/QUOTE]

Maybe Opethian you are too quick to elevate your self high upon that intellectual and seemingly sophistcated pedestal of knowledge that gives your audience the impression of your brilliance.

 

[JerryL]

It is impossible to discuss evolution with you because you do not understand the basics of how genetics work, you therefore will not be able to understand the complexities involved, nor be able to examine the mechanism of evolution as it must have occurred at a genetic level.

That's rhetoric, I could repeat the same thing back at you.

Now, once again, I challenge you to support your claim that there is a magic barrier that prevents mutation from writing code for a new gene. You've offered exactly zero reasons for it.

I'll make it easier. How does a mutation know whether it's writing a new gene or not?

First of all its Mitochondria not midochondria. Second of all, this is laughable:

Once again rhetoric. In what way is it laughable? What's in error about my comment? (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mitochondria+comparison+evolution)

Ok, so you're telling me that the mechanism of evolution of which i was talking about above is supported by scientists cutting out an existing gene and putting it into another genome?

You said "We have labs working with bacteria with high replication rates, we can mutate them at a very high rate, we can control the selection to specifically choose those that achieve this mechanism, but we have failed."

I gave an example of "manual mutation" (in this case, viral insertion) which did indeed prove your claim wrong.

It is not a pretty simple thing to do mutationally! I've just told you in my last reply that it has never been observed to happen. Mutation has never brought into existance a novel gene with a new function that fitted into a creature's already existing biochemical pathways.

It's your version of the "kind" argument. You will simply nuance your definition of "novel new" until it hasn't been observed directly.

OTOH, we all know full well that a gene is a sequence of DNA, and we have observed mutation both lenghtening and changing DNA. So there is no hard barrier against any combination of DNA coming up. At absolute best you have to make an argument on odd (math is one of my strongest subjects, I welcome it).

Throw in a few mutations that disrupt various genes in both halves of the herd and i guarrentee that down the line the goats will be different genetically, and their differences won't be allelic differences.

So their genes would be "novel" and perform new functions? There's half your claim disproven.

Want proof of "new"? Downs Syndrome.

It leaves us nowhere with regard to being able to say one way or another that the first simple creature could have evolved to all others - what we observe is not proof of this mechanism, because we have never observed mutation bringing into being new genes with novel functions that the creature did not have before.

We've never observed a pencil write Harry Potter so a pencil cannot write Harry Potter?

We've observed a pencil do everything neccessairy to write Harry Potter (write letters), and we know of no reason it could not write Harry Potter. Add to that, we have a copy of Harry Potter written in lead. So a pencil can be held to be capabale of writing Harry Potter (lacking any reason to believe theres a barrier to observed behavior), so now your only question is "did it?" That's when we start discussing things like the fossil record and DNA evidence and modern morphology.

The support of this alledged limitation of DNA mutation is that it has been tried again and again to be shown in laboratories but has never once occurred. This with bacteria who replicate extremely quickly - never been observed. Now what does that tell you JerryL - this simple process that you think it is. Why hasn't it been observed if it is as simple as you make out?

Firstly, I'm not entirely certain I believe yoru claim. Certainly, you've made your share of false claims on this thread.

Secondly, if no new genes have been observed forming, it tells me no new genes have been observed forming. Much like no one had been observed to achieve powered flight despite centuries of trying (until someone did) and no one had observed an atom despite centuries of looking (until someone did). For that matter, no one had seen a living Celocanth until someone did. Would you have stated that it was impossible for a celocanth to have survived to the modern age?

Downs Syndrome is as a result of duplication - there is nothing new about the genes, plus people with this syndrome are sterile.

It's a great number of new genes.... copied from an old one. Now we modify the new gene and it becomes "novel". You've agreed that genes modify.

BTW, once again you've lied on your facts.

"Down syndrome, the most common birth defect causing mental retardation, is characterized by a specific phenotype including subfertility or sterility and hypogonadism in males. In contrast, several females with Down syndrome have borne offspring. " - http://www.he.net/~altonweb/cs/downsyndrome/index.htm?page=fertilityab.html
​

In addition to establishing your case wrong *again*, your continued dishonesty in regards to statements of fact is undermining any ability to have a discourse with you.

Sickle-cell Anaemia is as a result of an impaired function - it no longer does its job correctly. People heterozygous (have one good gene and one bad gene) can survive only because they have the unmutated gene - if they have two mutated genes, then they are in serious trouble, malaria or no malaria.

Untreated malaria has a mortality of 60%. In a population with sickle-cell (and assuming people with anemia don't reproduce), then less than 25% of new births will have sickle-cell anemia. Hence why natural selection has declared this new gene "good" in areas with malaria.

 

[JerryL]

Maybe tonight you will grow a second eye or head or the baby you produce someday will have 6 fingers , that is random chance but is not within the DNA to produce such abnormalities.

So there are not genetic abnormaliities? Downs syndrome doens't happen? There is no cancer?

Please show me some mutations that are beneficial, I would be interested to see your definition of mutations.

Sickle-cell gene

On the contrary,I do understand how it works within it's true definition but disagree to the spin the evolutionists place on the origin of life from inanimate objects, to sophisticated creatures as humans ,some humans that is.That is not evolution, but a hypothesis and a theory if not a fantasy.

In what post did someone discuss abiogenesis?

 

[roli]

So there are not genetic abnormaliities? Downs syndrome doens't happen? There is no cancer?

If that is what you extracted from my thread ,but anyways this is what Isaid

is not within the DNA to produce such abnormalities

.
in in relation to a normal enviroment, sorry I was not specific I see how easy someone outside a conversation can dissect a thread

I said ,if you would recall my thread ,that if cells are altered or changed naturally through toxins,pollutants ,chemicals,poisons etc, that inturn violates certain laws or perimeters within our physiological makeup and they cause the cell to mutate

.

There are many variables to this but this response is in context with my conversation with Opethian ,by the way it's easy to pull a portion of a thread out of context and comment on it, make it appear questionable and or in error ,then dash off like a real champ under the spotlight ,:bonk:


.

 

[JerryL]

in in relation to a normal enviroment, sorry I was not specific I see how easy someone outside a conversation can dissect a thread

What's "a normal envyronment"? On what do you base your assertion that such mutations occur only in an "abnormal envyronment"?

There are many variables to this but this response is in context with my conversation with Opethian

If so, Opethian needs to work on his arguments; he's discussing two distinct things as though they were one.

by the way it's easy to pull a portion of a thread out of context and comment on it, make it appear questionable and or in error ,then dash off like a real champ under the spotlight ,

No doubt, but I fail to find relevence in this comment.

 

[painted wolf]

Downs Syndrome is as a result of duplication - there is nothing new about the genes, plus people with this syndrome are sterile.

this is catagorically incorrect.:tsk:
They are often sterilized by the government "for thier own good" but they are perfectly capable of producing healthy children.

wa:do

 

[Opethian]

In continuation of my last reply Yes there are evidences of evolution in fossils,my mistake, I did not clarify that the definition I was assuming to use was from the evolutionists dictionary, but to clarify what I meant was that there is no evidence of fish evolving into reptiles,reptiles into mammals and or humans. I hope you can piece what I am saying together
If you can find any evidence please enlighten me.

The problem is that the conditions that allow organisms to fossilize rarely occur, and we only find a small percentage of those organisms that do fossilize. This results in large time gaps between one found fossil to another it is thought to have evolved into. This makes it very difficult to find clear collections of fossils that distinctly show the evolution of organisms. But even then, there are still some pretty nice fossils out there that show the evolution from reptile to bird, reptile to mammal etc... I don't have any outside resources to show u but if I ever have a lot of time I'll try and look it back up.

Sorry for the grammar errors,again I appreciate your concern and interest in wanting me to learn how to spell properly but that is just another jab and I will graciously contain myself from indulging in the same derogatory staements.

I apologize for that comment, it was below the belt.

I said if you would recall my thread ,that if cells are altered or changed naturally through toxins,pollutants ,chemicals,poisons etc, that inturn violates certain laws or perimeters within our physiological makeup and they cause the cell to mutate.
That by the way is how all living cells function , that being under certain absolute laws ,

The change in the cells by toxins, pollutants, radiation etc is a change in the DNA (possibly an alteration of sequence because of the mutation of a particular base into a different one, causing a particular codon to form a different amino acid when translated and thus in the end forming a different protein which will most likely have a different effect on the organism than the original protein). This is the mutation, the change in DNA itself. What you describe as 2 different things are in fact just one thing and its effect. The change in the DNA is the mutation, the change of physiological makeup is the effect of the mutation, since the changed DNA results in altered proteins within the cell that have altered effects.
Your explanation is devoid of any biological understanding of mutations, you don't know how the process works, so how can you expect me to take you serious?

That might not sit well with those who don't believe in absolutes but absolutes are essential attributes in the healthy function of any living orgainism not to mention all things that consist of matter, but I don't know what I'm talking about,right!

To be honest, I don't know what you're talking about either.

Can cells be altered by scientific research and lab testing within a controlled enviroment and remain stable,possibly but not natures intention.

Nature has no intention. There is only cause and effect.

Maybe Opethian you are too quick to elevate your self high upon that intellectual and seemingly sophistcated pedestal of knowledge that gives your audience the impression of your brilliance.

I don't want to elevate myself high upon any stupid pedestal. I only want to get rid of all the overflowing ignorance on our little planet that is leading to the earth's destruction. There's too many people talking about things they don't understand. Too many people taking actions without having any understanding of what they're doing. This has to stop!

There are many variables to this but this response is in context with my conversation with Opethian ,by the way it's easy to pull a portion of a thread out of context and comment on it, make it appear questionable and or in error ,then dash off like a real champ under the spotlight ,

I didn't dash off, I have things to do in real life. I'll check back from time to time but I won't be on this constantly.

 

[Yerda]

Mutation has never brought into existance a novel gene with a new function that fitted into a creature's already existing biochemical pathways.

You can say this with certainty?

Throw in a few mutations that disrupt various genes in both halves of the herd and i guarrentee that down the line the goats will be different genetically, and their differences won't be allelic differences.
Evolution. But this isn't evolution that would cause the first simple creature to evolve to all other creatures today.

Sorry if I missed it earlier, but could you explain why not?

Out of interest, haven't you contradicted yourself?

Mutation has never brought into existance a novel gene with a new function that fitted into a creature's already existing biochemical pathways....

...i guarrentee that down the line the goats will be different genetically, and their differences won't be allelic differences....


Will these differences be acheived in ways other than mutation?

because we have never observed mutation bringing into being new genes with novel functions that the creature did not have before.

Like, say, synthesis of membrane proteins that confer resistance to antibiotics in prokaryotes?

I wonder if there is anything in the literature about utilisation of new nutrients.

 

[Fade]

Mutation has never brought into existance a novel gene with a new function that fitted into a creature's already existing biochemical pathways....

...i guarrentee that down the line the goats will be different genetically, and their differences won't be allelic differences....


Will these differences be acheived in ways other than mutation?

Endless doesn't like to admit that genetic variation is a result of mutation. I'm guessing it's because his argument falls apart if he does.
I'm still waiting for him to explain Great Danes and Sausage dogs without mutation.

Edit - It is interesting to note that if you do a search for 'genetic variation' in wikipedia the entry for 'Mutation' is automatically returned.

 

[Opethian]

But that is not what evolutionists stand by, they take it 1 step further to support their own bias agenda and say from non living matter came living matter and from that living organism or species came several different kinds of species,something totally contrary to the DNA make-up in each living oragainism . That in itself is a play on words not to mention unscientific.

Although I believe abiogenesis is a viable theory, the evolution theory says nothing about how living matter came from nonliving matter. I won't discuss abiogenesis here, this is a good subject for a different thread. The evolution theory merely explains how, starting from one (or several) common living ancestor(s) (it says nothing about how this ancestor came to be, like I already said this is covered by different theories like abiogenesis), all living organisms we see today came to be. You say the changing of species into different species is contrary to their DNA makeup? You must have never heard about mutations. Most mutations are harmful, often killing the organism, but a very small ratio of the mutations are neutral to beneficial for the organism, depending on the environment it is living in. These beneficial/neutral mutations (and other DNA-changing processes) along with the huge amount of time between the arisal of life and today, have led to the enormous diversity of life present on earth now. There is nothing unscientific about that in the least, your "explanation" above is.

2 humans to exchange DNA are of the same species and is normal behavior ,try a animal and a human having intercourse what would that produce ,it would'nt
Apparently by your attitude and overtone shows you to be more then likely an evolutionist and from that stand point I respect your underlying definition of "evolution" .
Sorry to disappoint you, I comprehend the fact that we evolve and progress from stage to stage.

I don't know what you were trying to say with the first 2 sentences there but they have absotely nothing to do with what we're discussing, and if you think they do, please explain why. Yes I am an evolutionist, but no you do not comprehend the evolution theory. What you have written once again proves this.

I never professed to be an acclaimed scientist as yourself but do have some knowledge and common sense and have read several articles from renown philosophers,scientists and evolutionists who have agreed that to think we evolved from nothingness is absurd to say the least, Darwin even said " to think that the eye came about by natural selection is absurd"

For crying out loud where did I ever state to be an acclaimed scientist, I'm 18 years old! I just think everybody should at least understand what the evolution theory is all about before opening their big ignorant mouths about it (not directed at anyone in particular). If I were you, I would check out the dates from those articles and the date during which those scientists etc... said this, and also check out what university they came from. Btw, for everyone of those anti-evolutionist scientists you mention named any name, I can mention 5 of those named Steven . They make out a very small percentage of scientists. Darwin made that quote a long time ago, when evolution was still in full development. We now have enough evidence and understanding of the current theory to be able to see how logical it is for the eye to come about by natural selection.

Random chance might work for you in order to support your lifestyle but please tell me what is the random chance you will develope wings or antennas,or fish will adapt legs or lungs,maybe because it is not in your DNA structure.
Maybe tonight you will grow a second eye or head or the baby you produce someday will have 6 fingers , that is random chance but is not within the DNA to produce such abnormalities.That by definition is evolution but surely not normally beneficial.
Please show me some mutations that are beneficial, I would be interested to see your definition of mutations.

You must understand that evolution works in small steps, animals don't just suddenly pop out wings. The changes you are looking to explain has to be viewed as the cumulative effect of a large number of smaller changes. Each of these changes would have to have a neutral/beneficial effect to be able to be preserved. For example (this is just a ****ty made-up explanation to give you an idea of what I'm talking about): if the animal first developed stubs by the mutation of a certain part of the DNA coding for skin proteins, that would give it added protection from predators. Later these stubs could grow out by other mutations, some stubs eventually becoming large enough to have the effect of added mobility along with protection from predators, allowing the animal to make large leaps. Eventually, the large stubs forms a real wing by more mutations that allows the animal to actually fly. The other stubs might degenerate because they no longer have a function, since the animal is now protected from predators by its ability to fly. (I know its crap but it helps you get my point I think).
So where in the DNA the mutation takes place, is random. But, because only mutations with beneficial and neutral effects on the organism are preserved (because if the mutation is negative the organism and its offspring, if it manages to produce any, will die), the evolution is not random!
There are plenty of beneficial mutations. They just don't occur that much. How do you think genetical engineering works? They cause a part of the DNA to mutate that they have selected because it will have a beneficial effect. Nature works in the same way, only in nature the DNA that mutates is random, in genetical engineering we pick out the DNA that we want to mutate.

On the contrary,I do understand how it works within it's true definition but disagree to the spin the evolutionists place on the origin of life from inanimate objects, to sophisticated creatures as humans ,some humans that is.That is not evolution, but a hypothesis and a theory if not a fantasy.

I'm sorry to say this, but you don't know how it works. Some evolutionists may express their belief in abiogenesis but the theory itself says nothing about the origin of life. The change from (a) common single celled ancestor(s) to every being we see on this planet today, is a fact. Nothing but rock solid fact.