Human DNA variance

i agree we have loads and loads of inherited faults*, but the last ones i would ask to 'cure' these conditions would be people working for the industry.

nothing personal, i just put 2 +2 together and found out that most of what's available 'over the counter' is ineffective (or limited to producing side effects) and the track record of genetic engineering, in particular, is horrible. www.abovetopsecret.com...'

* see f-ex L-gulono lactone oxidase

This is simply not the case. Mutations and disorders have existed as long as DNA has: it's called evolution. When a mutation is beneficial, it is an evolutionary advance. When it is detrimental, it is a disorder. I'm sorry you can't grasp this concept.

Mutations and disorders are not evolution. It is an unnatural occurence.

...Most so-called "genetic disorders" result from recent mutations.

Why don't we just stop contaminating our world with mutagens?

Instead of creating mutagens that cause mutations, which create disease, then creating technologies to treat the diseases caused by the mutations that were caused by the mutagens we created?

I agree. The scientific community would better serve the public in looking for the cause of mutations, but, then they would have to look at themselves.

The fact that one is not born with, for example, cancer and develops it means that a mutagen had to be acquired or introduced to the body. The common cold has not been conquered… why? Is it a control mechanism? Have we graduated to the Flu? Will scanning DNA be just another means to do away with those asking pesty questions and those who have opinions that can’t be shot down.


[edit on 11-1-2007 by Siren]

Originally posted by Siren

Mutations and disorders are not evolution. It is an unnatural occurence.

Unnatural occurance?? Quite the contrary. Mutations are the mechanism of evolution and are neccesary to the survival of a species. They are VERY common and happen in all life forms. Without random mutations no life form on this planet would have evolved or adapted. Some mutations end up being beneficial and some detremental. You know, natural selection and all that jazz.

While yes, there are mutagens in our environment they do not cause the majority of mutations. They happen with or without the presence of mutagens.

Mutations and disorders are not evolution. It is an unnatural occurence.

Please refer to ANY textbook containing information about evolution. The ONLY way an organism can change pheontype is for it to have a change in its DNA sequence, also known as a mutation.

ANY change in the sequence is a mutation, whether it is beneficial or not.

Ever wonder why we have less body hair than chimpanzees? Mutations.

Ever curious about why we have a frontal lobe, unlike other apes? Mutations.

Get it?

Evolution is the process in which inherited traits become more or less prevalent in a population over successive generations. Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones.

en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree vehemently with this theory (not fact). Science needs to stop the spread of this nonsense. For something new in the human genome to be obtained something new or altered must be introduced.

A bird will always be a bird. A snake will always be a snake. A monkey will always be a monkey, an apple will always be an apple, etc., etc., etc., Humans without interference will always look like their parents and or grandparents (family). I believe the evolution idea came into being by those without human genomes to explain their existence. Nature follows course it does not deviate. Cloning would provide the perfect vehicle for non-humans (aliens) to mask themselves.

Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years. Until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution (a theory which has enjoyed prominence in biological circles for over 100 years) simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility.

www.allaboutcreation.org...

If one species evolved into another, "linking" species would have to have existed in profuse quantities at various points in earth's history. But profuse quantities of missing links which could be termed "indisputable evidence" have never been found.

wholettheapesout.com...*2

If they didn't find it in 100 years my guess is that they didn't
Get It!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Siren]

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Siren]

Cloning would provide the perfect vehicle for non-humans (aliens) to mask themselves.

Hmm....ok, well, it's fairly clear that you don't operate in the same reality as I do, and that you don't understand what exactly the words "evolution", "genome", and "mutation", mean. I suggest you buy a good solid genetics textbook, such as "Genetics" by Pierce. Good book. Read up on some of this stuff before posting about aliens, hehe.

Hmm....ok, well, it's fairly clear that you don't operate in the same reality as I do, and that you don't understand what exactly the words "evolution", "genome", and "mutation", mean. I suggest you buy a good solid genetics textbook, such as "Genetics" by Pierce. Good book. Read up on some of this stuff before posting about aliens, hehe.

Maybe not, my reality is based on truth. What reality do you operate in? It is evident that my understanding of evolution is clear in that I used one external source to define it and furthermore, it was substantiated by another external source.

After over 100 years of searching and research there is no evidence to support your claim.

If one species evolved into another, "linking" species would have to have existed in profuse quantities at various points in earth's history. But profuse quantities of missing links which could be termed "indisputable evidence" have never been found.

wholettheapesout.com...*2

Keeping it simple, is there any information you wish to share that will clarify the above quote?



[edit on 11-1-2007 by Siren]

Originally posted by Siren
For something new in the human genome to be obtained something new or altered must be introduced.

Nope, sorry, all it takes is the misplacement of one or more nucleotides in a sequence during replication. Thus, a mutation.

about mutations

This can be proven in the laboratory with bacteria.

Your body has replicated its DNA within your cells billions of times during your life, you actually think that at some point it never makes a mistake?

Also, using a website called who let the apes out.com lends no credibility to your arguement. Surely, if your version holds water you can find some scientifc web sites to back it up.

imho, it's quite clear, from a philosophical point of view, that evolution in the word's original sense, is real and even has to be.

we see an abundance of species (even though earth's human population seemingly does its best to destroy it all) and unless all of our fossil records are a bizarre form of mirage and eversthing came into being at once, new species have to be generated. deferring the cause to aliens does not change much, because now you have to explain their origin first.

how this works, is imvho, not even being touched by modern science, because the distinguishing trait of a different species is that it can't be crossbred. at some point, the species barrier has to come into existance, in which case (a point mutation could only affect a single individual) the new species is already doomed.

we know how species are killed ('selection'), we don't know how they form, but people cannot or don't want to admit it .

Mutation and evolution certainly ARE a part of life. Life being a dynamic process that occurs in a dynamic and changeable environment. Mutation and evolution allow life to adapt to environmental changes.

...Which makes adaptation - and evolution - a beautifully elegant solution to the reality of environmental change.

But often, the way evolution works is counter-intuitive. For example, some mutations that cause disease actually are beneficial - because they confer immunity to other disease(s).

Certain diseases are the result of genetic adaptations against other diseases; the best example being sickle-cell anemia, a double dose of a trait which in single-dose confers immunity against malaria.

***

Genetics, Inheritance & Variation

Another example of codominance is sickle cell haemoglobin in humans. The gene for haemoglobin Hb has two codominant alleles: HbA (the normal gene) and HbS (the mutated gene). There are three phenotypes:

HbAHbA - Normal. All haemoglobin is normal, with normal red blood cells.

HbAHbS - Sickle cell trait. 50% of the haemoglobin in every red blood cell is normal, and 50% is abnormal. The red blood cells are slightly distorted, but can carry oxygen, so this condition is viable. However these red blood cells cannot support the malaria parasite, so this phenotype confers immunity to malaria.

HbSHbS - Sickle cell anaemia. All haemoglobin is abnormal, and molecules stick together to form chains, distorting the red blood cells into sickle shapes. These sickle red blood cells are destroyed by the spleen, so this phenotype is fatal.

***

Infection with H9N2 influenza viruses confers immunity against lethal H5N1 infection O'Neill E, Seo SH, Woodland DL, Shortridge KF, Webster RG. Options for the Control of Influenza IV, Osterhaus et al. eds., International Congress Series 1219, 775-781, 2001

***

From Maps to Medicine: The Impact of the Genome Project by Dr. Beverly S. Emanuel, Director of Human Genetics Center; Charles E. H. Upham Chair in Pediatrics


The easiest genetic diseases to understand are those caused by a single gene that has gone awry. Single gene diseases include relatively rare disorders such as cystic fibrosis, phenylketonuria, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia and Huntington's disease. In a sense, the genes for these diseases act like a single time bomb ticking away inside the DNA double helix.

Much more common, and far more complicated, are the diseases caused by malformations in several or many genes that influence each other in complex ways that are poorly understood. Hypertension, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, coronary artery disease and numerous other diseases that afflict our species are caused by the interactions of multiple different genes. Each individual gene has a relatively modest effect, but together they determine whether someone is going to develop a disease or not. Multiple gene diseases or what we call polygenic diseases are far harder to understand than those which are caused by single genes.

Complicating matters even further, most genetic diseases result from an interplay between an inherited predisposition and factors in a person's external environment and lifestyle. It's not just the individual cards that you have been dealt, but it also depends upon how you play the hand. It's important to keep this in mind to avoid the dangers that can potentially arise from biological determinism--thinking that everything about an individual is predetermined by the DNA code written in his or her genes.

So disease is not always bad, or non-adaptive. "Genetic disease" can be, and often is, part of the adaptive evolutionary process.

Unfortunately though, human industrial activities change the environment faster than most lifeforms can adapt to the changes, including humans.

Ie., see:

The Sixth Extinction

So what is the Sixth Extinction? When is it coming? And what is its cause? "It's the next annihilation of vast numbers of species. It is happening now, and we, the human race, are its cause," explains Dr. Richard Leakey, the world's most famous paleoanthropologist. Every year, between 17,000 and 100,000 species vanish from our planet, he says. "For the sake of argument, let's assume the number is 50,000 a year. Whatever way you look at it, we're destroying the Earth at a rate comparable with the impact of a giant asteroid slamming into the planet, or even a shower of vast heavenly bodies." The statistics he has assembled are staggering. Fifty per cent of the Earth's species will have vanished inside the next 100 years; mankind is using almost half the energy available to sustain life on the planet, and this figure will only grow as our population leaps from 5.7 billion to ten billion inside the next half-century. Such a dramatic and overwhelming mass extinction threatens the entire complex fabric of life on Earth, including the species responsible for it: Homo sapiens.

***

MASS EXTINCTION UNDERWAY: The World Wide Web's Most Comprehensive Source of Information on the Current Mass Extinction

***

New Frontiers: Evolution and the Future The Sixth Extinction by Niles Eldredge

ed format

[edit on 12-1-2007 by soficrow]

The following excerpts from the “Institute for Creation Research” are of a different opinion.

Because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact.
We have noted from the statements of leading evolutionary scientists that no true vertical evolution from one kind of organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history.
1. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life.

2. The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source.

3. Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced.

4. It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of life. Life is the secret of DNA. Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.

5. If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process.

What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved.

The present state of the universe and the laws that govern it contradict all evolutionary theories concerning its origin.

www.icr.org...

Because mutations tend to destroy existing information if each country nukes the other the environment will change and the introduction of the chemical agents into the body will provide the conditions necessary to produce millions of mutants who in time may think they are normal.

You're somehow shocked that the Institute for Creation Research doesn't believe in evolution?

How about you go to a mainstream research source, you know, one that is respected by peers and doesn't make things up to seem legitimate?

Originally posted by Siren

Because mutations tend to destroy existing information if each country nukes the other the environment will change and the introduction of the chemical agents into the body will provide the conditions necessary to produce millions of mutants who in time may think they are normal.

Exactly.

Environmental changes - like new synthetic or abnormally concentrated chemicals or radiation - provide the conditions necessary to produce mutations.

Many of these mutations will be "adaptive" - and because they help people adapt to the "new" environment, they could become blueprints for human evolution.

Not my idea of a good time, but hey - If it works...

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Different species would not be able to mate, and all of us can obviously mate with anyone else of the opposite sex.

Cross-species mating does in fact occur and happens all the time in the animal kingdom and not all hybrids are sterile. So you're either some sort of creationist or lack fundamental genetic knowledge in order to make such a false statement that the human species is/was incapable of natural hybridization.

Cross-species mating may be evolutionarily important and lead to rapid change, say IUB researchers

DNA reveals human-chimp crossbreeding The Register

__________________________



Human Hybrids of the Future? Transhumanism

Regenmacher:

If you will please read your own sources, you will see that indeed I DO have a "fundamental knowledge" of genetics (a degree in it tends to do that to you). Let's see, where should I begin?

From your source at The Register:

Lead author Nick Patterson said: “If the dating is correct, the fossil would precede the human-chimp split. The fact that it has human-like features suggest that human-chimp speciation may have occurred over a long period with episodes of hybridisation.”

Now, that quote suggests that early "human-like" species were able to breed with chimps. I believe that absolutely. We already aren't far off genetically from chimps, and about 5 million years ago were even closer. No where does it say modern human were able to breed with chimps. Perhaps you need to re-read your source, you know, past the title?

Now, your source from Indiana University:
[quote[Still, cross-species matings usually result in sickness or sterility, if the offspring get that far -- many naturally abort.

That sounds familiar...oh yeah, I said it!

"We're all aware hybridization and intensive cross-breeding has produced better corn and better cows,"

They're absolutely right, it has. However, hybridisation of demesticated animals and plants is much different than in the wild. The article states that even successfully hyrbridised and fertile animals are usually much weaker than their non-hybridised constituents and thus rarely is ab le to breed and entre the gene pool.

So, basically, your articles are bunk. They represent good theory, absolutely, but not applied genetics. I'm sure cross-breeding does occur, but it rarely successful, happens very rarely, and has not happened in humans for nearly 5-6 million years (before we were modern humans).

Originally posted by bsl4doc
So, basically, your articles are bunk. They represent good theory, absolutely, but not applied genetics. I'm sure cross-breeding does occur, but it rarely successful, happens very rarely, and has not happened in humans for nearly 5-6 million years (before we were modern humans).

Fundamental Knowledge 101: You specifically said "different species would not be able to mate." and they should of told you, even in primary school, that stating an absolute that is known to be false is a display of ignorance or deception....around here we "deny ignorance", not display more of it.

Very rarely is not the same as "different species would not be able to mate" (btw, seperate species of birds crossbreed quite often in the wild). Same ignorance or mental disorder goes along with calling published information as bunk, but at the same time in agreement with it and/or unable to supply any reputable proof to the contrary.

I will also remind you we have just started gathering data in regards to the human genome, and thus your current opinions about crossbreeding homo-sapiens with other species are subjective assumptions. Best hope we don't reclassify the current human race into different species too, or your going to look mighty foolish eating all that crow pie.

Humanzee -Wiki

However, despite speculation, no case of a human-chimpanzee cross has ever been confirmed to exist in modern times. This doesn't make it entirely impossible; Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003 successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created.

So where's your study in regards to mating modern humans with chimps to prove it can't be done, must of missed that. Maybe you better show me your data log on human evolution over the last 5 million years too, or how you have sucessfully backcrossed the human genome with 100% accuracy.



Neanderthal Genome Sequencing Yields Surprising Results and Opens a New Door to Future Studies Berkeley Lab

More Human-Neandertal Mixing Evidence Uncovered Sciencedaily

Our Species Mated With Other Human Species, Study Says National Geographic

Hybrid - Wiki - If it can be done in a lab, it can or has been done in nature.


“To err is human; but contrition felt for the crime distinguishes the virtuous from the wicked.”
~ Vittorio Alfieri




[edit on 15-1-2007 by Regenmacher]