Watch Evolution in Action

a reply to: Astyanax

Ahh man, I was hoping for a living intermitent transitional.

But if this is how diseases get cured or something useful to
mankind is goin on then SnF.

Hi Asty!

a reply to: randyvs

Everything is transitional even you.

a reply to: whereislogic
Regarding 15:45, and then you're still missing the protein folding machine that actually folds this particular protein into a functional shape. And everything else that is interdependent on and with it (ATP-fuel, the whole caboodle). But they weren't talking about that.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Everything is transitional even you.

IDK I'm just not see'n it.

a reply to: randyvs
You'll have to see your children's children's children's children's children's children's..... children's children in order to see it in humans.

Microbes have shorter generations. A lot shorter.

a reply to: randyvs

I understand that from your perspective, it seems silly and perhaps unrealistic that every population is in a constant state of transition but when we look at the micro end of the genetics scale, you aren't an identical clone of your parents right?

You're own genetics are a mashup of your parents genetics. Likewise, your children aren't genetic copies of you. They share the genes of you(as well as all of your familial predecessors) and your significant other. Every new generation is the result of new genetic combinations from their progenitors. Add in to that mix the mutations that occur throughout the lifetime of the organism and expand the timescale.

Try to look at it from this angle, 10,000 years ago nobody had blue eyes and there were no Caucasians. Our entire genus has been in transition since day one when H. Habilis first appeared on the scene nearly 3 million years ago. The morphological variation between H. Habilis at 2.8 MA and H. Erectus @1.8 MA is considerable. And then we can look at our immediate predecessor, H. Heidelbergensis. Morphologically, there isn't as large a chasm between them and Erectus as there was between Erectus and Habilis but there is still a huge difference between Heidelbergensis and us. Heidelbergensis has the honor of being the immediate predecessor of not just us(H. Sapiens Sapiens) but also Neanderthal and Denisovans.

Now, we don't know what Denisovans actually looked like because the entirety of their fossil record can fit in the palm of your hand and none of those remains are cranio facial but we most definitely know what Neanderthal looked like and we have a century and a half of comparative anatomy to draw from and an excellent collection of Neanderthal fossils from Iraq to Brittain and over a period of over a quarter million years. On top of the fossil remains, we have complete genomes from Neanderthal, Denisovan and ourselves to compare against not just each other, but other apes enabling us to chart genetic changes across a lengthy period of time (several hundred thousand years). It enables us to establish a molecular clock and determine how long ago mutations actually occurred.

Anyway... That was a ridiculously long winded rant attempting to illustrate that our entire genus has been in transition since day one and well before that, stretching back to the first chipmunk sized mammals that crept out of the aftermath of the ELE that ended the reign of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period. Who knows what we will look like in a other 25 or 50 KA. WHAT I do know is that if we, as a species, survive that long, we will be different than we are today.

a reply to: peter vlar

Well unfortunately Vlar, long winded rants as you refer. Are both called for and appreciated when it comes to Randy. I really like the effort you make on my part. And I have spent quite a few hours checking definitions and trying to absorb some of them. I'll be on this for a while.

a reply to: Phage

Thank you Phage.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: whereislogic
Regarding 15:45, and then you're still missing the protein folding machine that actually folds this particular protein into a functional shape. And everything else that is interdependent on and with it (ATP-fuel, the whole caboodle). But they weren't talking about that.

I enjoy bringing this up with friends. What came first - the gene itself or ancillary genes that code for proteins necessary for the gene's proper expression? Of course, this is unanswerable because it is obvious that either function (the gene itself, or the necessary support genes) is useless without the other.

Chaperonins, for example, allow proper protein folding: Thermosome Chaperonin II. What is a gene-protein without its necessary chaperonin? What is a chaperonin without a gene-protein to fold? It's the chicken or the egg - they were both Coded for simultaneously by a Designer.

a reply to: cooperton

Why don't you answer questions relevant to the subject and topic rather than portraying yourself as some wizard of science:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can run, but you can't hide.

a reply to: cooperton

So what exactly is a "gene-protein" neighbour? Stop making up terms. Genes code for proteins (they can also code for RNA), but the phrase "gene-protine" is goobly gook. So I assume you mean "protein coding genes".

It is really painful to watch you pretend you know what you are on about.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Why don't you answer questions relevant to the subject and topic

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can run, but you can't hide.

This is relevant - Do you understand the predicament I am trying to articulte? Or do you continue to send me go-fishing to avoid answering the dilemma presented?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

So what exactly is a "gene-protein" neighbour? Stop making up terms. Genes code for proteins (they can also code for RNA), but the phrase "gene-protine" is goobly gook. So I assume you mean "protein coding genes".

It is really painful to watch you pretend you know what you are on about.

So instead of answering the paradox you just scrutinize semantics? Yet you clearly understood what was meant by gene-protein. I am trying to speak in layman's terms so everyone can understand. Can you answer the question instead of diverting attention?

what came first the "protein coding gene" or said gene's necessary ancillary proteins? Either is useless without the other, so how could they have been generated in a piecewise fashion as theorized by evolution? Especially when these chaperone proteins are so complex: chaperone protein

rather than portraying yourself as some wizard

It's not magic it's just empirical science.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: whereislogic
Regarding 15:45, and then you're still missing the protein folding machine that actually folds this particular protein into a functional shape. And everything else that is interdependent on and with it (ATP-fuel, the whole caboodle). But they weren't talking about that.

I enjoy bringing this up with friends. What came first - the gene itself or ancillary genes that code for proteins necessary for the gene's proper expression? Of course, this is unanswerable because it is obvious that either function (the gene itself, or the necessary support genes) is useless without the other.

Chaperonins, for example, allow proper protein folding: Thermosome Chaperonin II. What is a gene-protein without its necessary chaperonin? What is a chaperonin without a gene-protein to fold? It's the chicken or the egg - they were both Coded for simultaneously by a Designer.

A simple protein with some degree of function can along with others through optimization develop dependence. Is like humans humans need lots of vitamins and essential amino acids to function, they've become dependent on the environment. Evolution from the level of molecules to the level of organisms tends to develop dependence through optimization of the underlying structures.

The predecesor structure were different than the currently existing structures and able to function independently which have adapted to depend on each other so as to be more optimal, and can no longer function independently.

Just as humans depend on some foods to avoid vitamin and amino deficiencies.

a reply to: cooperton
Did you know the chaperonin (folding machine) is also highly sensitive to mutations in certain areas (regarding its functionality)? One little change there and things start to go haywire. It's just right the way it is. Leading some people (like the man below) to say or agree with the philosophy/idea that 'Nature leaves nothing to chance', but can nature really do that? I know of a mythological God called Gaia representing Mother Nature who can make deliberate choices like that, theoretically according to the ancient Pagan Greek religious philosophy and storyline. That already makes more sense than saying that 'Nature leaves nothing to chance'.

What I'm talking about is further discussed at 9:54 and 20:07 in the video below (pardon the technical jargon), Mind you that he brought up the 'nature leaves nothing to chance' phrase regarding a slightly different but related subject than what I described above):

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

So what exactly is a "gene-protein" neighbour? Stop making up terms. Genes code for proteins (they can also code for RNA), but the phrase "gene-protine" is goobly gook. So I assume you mean "protein coding genes".

It is really painful to watch you pretend you know what you are on about.

It's the god of the gaps, trying to insert an ever shrinking god, while ignoring the fact that we have 98% accurate algorithms that predict ancestral sequence reconstruction.
We are very close to being able to reconstruct ancestral genes, along with ancestral proteins, this in turn could also help scientists use ancient gene sequences to synthesize better proteins to battle diseases.

Time travel substitute
But ASR algorithms have faced logical criticism. Species based on those primal genes are long extinct, and scientists can’t travel back in time to observe mutations that have happened since. So, how can anyone find any physical benchmark to verify and gauge ASR?
A team of researchers led by Gaucher did it by building an evolutionary framework out of myriad mutations. Then they benchmarked ASR algorithms against it – no time machine required. Their results have shored up confidence that the widely used algorithms are working as they should.
“Most of them did a very good job – 98% accurate,” Gaucher said of contemporary algorithms’ ability to compute ancient gene sequences. Their determination of proteins encoded by those sequences was virtually perfect.

Gaucher, research coordinator Ryan Randall and undergraduate student Caelan Radford published their results on Thursday, September 15, 2016, in the journal Nature Communications. Their research has been funded by the NASA Exobiology program, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) and the National Science Foundation.

LINK

Remnants of extinct monkeys are hiding inside you, along with those of lizards, jellyfish and other animals. Your DNA is built upon gene fragments from primal ancestors.

Welcome to the real world my fellow primate deniers.

a reply to: flyingfish

Who are you calling a primate denier?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: flyingfish

Who are you calling a primate denier?

I know, I kind of flubbed that one up a bit, I sleep through grammar study's.
How about..

Welcome to the real world primate deniers! Evolve or face extinction!

a reply to: flyingfish

Better I don't deny primates, they tend to fling things at me

Well, I didn't see any legs or arms grow, and as far as I can tell it remained bacteria. Nothing to see here.

a reply to: Fromabove

You have a rather unrealistic idea of how evolution works don't you?