Evolution is FACT!

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


You still did not address the issue of WHERE ARE ALL THE FAILED ATTEMPTS? There should be a vast number of these, both in the fossil record and among the living animals today.

Fossilization is a rare phenomenon. Fossilization of a rare "fatal" mutation would be an exceptional find, not only due to the combined odds but also the nature in which fossilization takes place. This "fatally" mutated organism would not only have to live long enough to die in just the right place at just the right time but also to have said mutation in a conspicuous place (outside the body) to allow us to observe the "fatal" mutation, so the idea that there would be a "vast number of these" is simply not true. We have enough trouble finding intact records of "successful" organisms, let alone "flawed" fossils with enough detail to deduce that they were nature's rejects.




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 





It wasn't that long ago that science was absolutely positive the powered, heavier than air flight, was impossible.


Um... since anyone could see powered, heavier than air flight happening all around them, why would 'science' believe that?

Perhaps the less imaginative authorities, like Aristotle or the Catholic Church thought birds fly and mankind didn't because that is their place in the universe, but it is obvious to all that birds are heavier than air and achieve powered flight and has been forever (ignoring the fact that the concept of the weight of air is not very old, of course).

Once Science had puzzled out how birds achieved their powered flight it was inevitable that Technology would figure out how to imitate it.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseeker84
 


View the video linked below. Warning: it's two hours long!

However, the speaker, Dr. Francis Collins, was head of the Human Genome Project, and is an avowed creationist. One would think that is a contradictory thing but it really isn't.

Dr. Collins has no time for Intelligent Design, and understands evolution well. In this video he debunks most of the ID'ers principle claims. Including the supposed "problem" with the Chimp DNA, and why it is actually evidence for evolution.

I expect there are other sources that could explain it to you in less than two hours, but I thought (A) you might accept it from a creationist better than from a secular evolutionist and (B) if you can't be bothered to Google up the results, why should I be bothered to do your research for you



Google Video Link


Edit: forgot the link


[edit on 9/1/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 





Quite simply, if God doesn't exist and evolution is true, then we really don't have any purpose whatsoever, and really, every law is ridiculous. If we are mere animals, then there is no morality. Does a lion have morality? None whatsoever.


That is, quite simply, wrong beyond comprehension. I sorry that you personally can't imagine a purpose to life without God, but happy that you have found God gives you a purpose. However you should understand that other people don't have the same problem.

And why are laws ridiculous without God? Didn't Jesus say something along the lines of "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; and render unto God what is God's". Sounds like Jesus was acknowledging the usefulness of secular law to me. Who the heck are you to criticize the Son of God?

Does a lion have morality? Of course, absolutely. It is the morality of survival and is the same exact morality as you and me. The lion doesn't have (as far as we know) the luxury of philosophy to think about it on the same terms as we do, but it is, never-the-less, exactly the same.

Here is an example: Lions mate for life. Without (as far as we know) a God to tell them that it is a good thing. Does that make them more moral or less moral than humans?

Can you not see the stupidity for you to claim that God exists and created everything, including lions, and that He/She/It is the source of all morality in the universe, and then deny that lions have a morality within their 'world view' as God intended is to deny your own belief in God's creation and justification for morality. Frankly, it shows that you have no respect for God, the moral imperatives he imbued in creation, or yourself.

Perhaps your belief in God is counterproductive, then. If your belief in God is your only source for morality, and you have no respect for that morality, what then is your moral viewpoint? You must have incredible analyst bills (...Um, I assume you aren't a Scientologist, but if you are, feel free to substitute "auditing" for "analyst").



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 





Here, why don't you go educate yourself on this site, and take an honest look at the issues of making small incremental changes vs. large changes, and how there are indeed large changes in evidence, to which evolutionary processes cannot account.

Go ahead, take a solid look at this site... I dare you. I challenge you to put aside your smugness and take an honest look at the info at this site. I doubt you will, however, because you have already admitted how you find faith repugnant and therefore it is hard to imagine that you are capable of taking an honest look with an open heart.

Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design


OK, I tried. But here is the 4th sentence in the introductory remarks:



Over a century later, science has yet to show that complex organs can be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and many scientists do not think that this is important.


That sentence is FALSE. TOTALLY FALSE.

It is not just wrong. It is a calculated lie.

Not only do scientists think this is important, many are actively engaged in discovering the wonders of biology to that exact purpose. Do scientists know the exact evolutionary path of every 'complex organ' in existence? Of course not, they wouldn't have anything to do if they did. But they most definitely know all the favorite 'irreducibly complex' candidates that have been proposed over the last 200 years (yes, 200 years, this idea predates even Darwin).

It makes no sense to waste time on a document that bases its entire premise on such an obvious lie. I will never the less continue as time permits to review the document.

Don't hold your breath for any epiphanies though. I don't give much truck to people who use such blatant lies to attract insecure people.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by downisreallyup
 





Here, why don't you go educate yourself on this site, and take an honest look at the issues of making small incremental changes vs. large changes, and how there are indeed large changes in evidence, to which evolutionary processes cannot account.

Go ahead, take a solid look at this site... I dare you. I challenge you to put aside your smugness and take an honest look at the info at this site. I doubt you will, however, because you have already admitted how you find faith repugnant and therefore it is hard to imagine that you are capable of taking an honest look with an open heart.

Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design


OK, I tried. But here is the 4th sentence in the introductory remarks:



Over a century later, science has yet to show that complex organs can be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and many scientists do not think that this is important.


That sentence is FALSE. TOTALLY FALSE.

It is not just wrong. It is a calculated lie.

Not only do scientists think this is important, many are actively engaged in discovering the wonders of biology to that exact purpose. Do scientists know the exact evolutionary path of every 'complex organ' in existence? Of course not, they wouldn't have anything to do if they did. But they most definitely know all the favorite 'irreducibly complex' candidates that have been proposed over the last 200 years (yes, 200 years, this idea predates even Darwin).

It makes no sense to waste time on a document that bases its entire premise on such an obvious lie. I will never the less continue as time permits to review the document.

Don't hold your breath for any epiphanies though. I don't give much truck to people who use such blatant lies to attract insecure people.



It would be all too convenient for anyone to dismiss the objective-logical because of a difference of opinion in the subjective-emotional, so I am glad you will continue to press through...as someone wise once told me, swallow the meat and spit out the bones.

Subjective statements are just that, but objective logic is irrefutable. Though I am not holding my breath (as you forewarned) I am glad you are willing to skip by any subjective editorializing and evaluate the actual logical meat. That is what I do, and that is what any true seeker of truth would do. A person who is only interested in being right will look for any minor crumb of objection in order to justify his preconceived desires, and will summarily reject a mountain all for the sake of a speck of dirt.

Also, the only favorite 'irreducibly complex' candidate I care about is ATP-Synthase, since it is present in every living creature, from the smallest microbe to the largest beast, and it is quite amazingly complex in what it does and how it does it. I guess those who have proposed the "irreducible complexity' idea were not familiar with ATP-Synthase, because certainly they would have included it.

The other mechanism that would need some kind of rational explanation is DNA-transcriptase and really the entire DNA error correction mechanism. That is because without the error-correction it seems that mutations would be out of control, both in frequency and severity. It is doubtful that any kind of stable mechanism could form in such a high-error-rate environment.

These two are really the "chicken and the egg" scenario, which really gets to the heart of the matter, which is: how can a system that depends on a boundary-driven reproductive process bootstrap itself into existence before that reproductive process even exists?

By the way, I'm not here to argue with anyone, and I'm certainly not interested in hearing any ad hominem attacks or insults. I'm only sincerely wanting to hear anyone who can provide a believable answer to these questions. And don't try to appear intelligent by saying things like "go take a course" because I HAVE taken courses and I did not find their arguments tenable, since they could not address my questions such that I didn't have to take anything on faith. You can't sell me a scientific theory that has holes in it, especially when those holes are fundamental. Plug the holes and I will gladly change my view. I'm not interested in being right... I'm only interested in truth.


[edit on 9-1-2010 by downisreallyup]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 





Also, the only favorite 'irreducibly complex' candidate I care about is ATP-Synthase, since it is present in every living creature, from the smallest microbe to the largest beast, and it is quite amazingly complex in what it does and how it does it.


So your focus has moved from 'a flagellum is irreducibly complex, how could it have evolved' (because that question has been answered) to 'one of the bits of the flagellum is irreducibly complex, how could it have evolved' because scientists are still working on it.

Well, yes, scientists can't answer authoritatively on ATP-Synthase yet. But there are at least two proposed models. And work continues.

So you are saying that when they can answer this question authoritatively then you will be a believer in evolution? Of all the billions and billions of data points that confirm evolution, from biology, DNA, fossil record, real world experimentation (and accident), that one problem in organic chemistry is bottom line for you? (Oh, yeah the DNA repair thing, I haven't got to that part yet - another post).

Stay tuned then, because your bell will be rung soon.

But guess what? Scientists will move on to something else that isn't currently explained. Its what they do. Holding out for one personal favorite problem solution before you accept the rest of the body of work that has been solved already is rather pig-headed.

I'm interested in knowledge. Truth is subjective. That is the argument that is being discussed in the whole Garden of Eden scenario. The creator is shown to be telling Adam 'the truth' and to stay away from knowledge. But the serpent convinces Eve that knowledge is better. Mankind chooses the path of knowledge over imparted subjective "truth". This exchange is the primary driver behind the Gnostic belief that the Creator in the Old Testament is "Satan", the misguided demi-urge that 'stole' some life force from the ineffible Godhead and accidentally trapped it in the material world. Christian Gnostics further identify the Serpent with Christ who came to bring knowledge to the world and return the trapped life force to the Godhead.

Edit: I don't see your problem about the 'DNA error correction', the process seems to be well described since at least 2008 (corrected by edit two). Some RNA performs 'error correction' and some does not. The process appears to have evolved from early defense mechanisms against rival molecular invaders.

Edit two: I misread the reference I reviewed, the process has been worked out since at least 2008, not 2002 when it was described.

Backtracking and Error Correction in DNA transcription

But there was already work starting to explainhow the mechanism could have evolved as far back as 2002. DNA codes own error correction

[edit on 9/1/2010 by rnaa]


[edit on 9/1/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by downisreallyup
 





Also, the only favorite 'irreducibly complex' candidate I care about is ATP-Synthase, since it is present in every living creature, from the smallest microbe to the largest beast, and it is quite amazingly complex in what it does and how it does it.


So your focus has moved from 'a flagellum is irreducibly complex, how could it have evolved' (because that question has been answered) to 'one of the bits of the flagellum is irreducibly complex, how could it have evolved' because scientists are still working on it.

Well, yes, scientists can't answer authoritatively on ATP-Synthase yet. But there are at least two proposed models. And work continues.

So you are saying that when they can answer this question authoritatively then you will be a believer in evolution? Of all the billions and billions of data points that confirm evolution, from biology, DNA, fossil record, real world experimentation (and accident), that one problem in organic chemistry is bottom line for you? (Oh, yeah the DNA repair thing, I haven't got to that part yet - another post).

Stay tuned then, because your bell will be rung soon.

But guess what? Scientists will move on to something else that isn't currently explained. Its what they do. Holding out for one personal favorite problem solution before you accept the rest of the body of work that has been solved already is rather pig-headed.

I'm interested in knowledge. Truth is subjective. That is the argument that is being discussed in the whole Garden of Eden scenario. The creator is shown to be telling Adam 'the truth' and to stay away from knowledge. But the serpent convinces Eve that knowledge is better. Mankind chooses the path of knowledge over imparted subjective "truth". This exchange is the primary driver behind the Gnostic belief that the Creator in the Old Testament is "Satan", the misguided demi-urge that 'stole' some life force from the ineffible Godhead and accidentally trapped it in the material world. Christian Gnostics further identify the Serpent with Christ who came to bring knowledge to the world and return the trapped life force to the Godhead.

Edit: I don't see your problem about the 'DNA error correction', the process seems to be well described since at least 2008 (corrected by edit two). Some RNA performs 'error correction' and some does not. The process appears to have evolved from early defense mechanisms against rival molecular invaders.

Edit two: I misread the reference I reviewed, the process has been worked out since at least 2008, not 2002 when it was described.

Backtracking and Error Correction in DNA transcription

But there was already work starting to explainhow the mechanism could have evolved as far back as 2002. DNA codes own error correction

[edit on 9/1/2010 by rnaa]


[edit on 9/1/2010 by rnaa]


Read all my posts again, and you will see that I have talked about ATP-Synthase from the start and I mentioned nothing about flagellum. You are confusing me with someone else. The reason I look at ATP-Synthase is because it has properties that really do appear to be irreducibly complex. You have "faith" they will find an answer, but I do not share that "faith" and I also believe that any explanation they present will be contrived, illogical, and incomplete.

My comments about DNA error correction is one of logic, not biology. Any system, no matter what kind it is, must meet the basic tests of complete logical consistency. This is my whole problem with this theory. It presents a system that appears to be logical when looking at it generally, but not when probing it critically. It is based on a set of initial postulates that are founded on circular-reasoning. The circular-reasoning is this:

1) Biological changes are caused by errors in DNA replication.
2) Beneficial changes are preserved through accurate DNA replication.

So, the very thing that allows biological changes (mutations) is the very thing that prevents beneficial changes from being preserved. Even the simplest one-cell organism has a complex DNA mechanism, and for there to be more than a generation or two of any consistency, the error-correction is required. The error-correction is what allows ANY traits to be passed along reliably, and so, before it FIRST appeared, mutations must have been wild, pervasive, and all over the landscape. In fact, it is hard to imagine how any kind of consistency in any biological organism happened at all without an error-correction mechanism. Plus, where did the energy come from to power the process? Without the energy release that comes from ATP losing a phosphate, how was the process powered? It is hard to imagine a DNA molecule functioning outside the context of a cell, and how could the cell develop at all without the DNA?

The main logical problem is this: if the prevention of massive and drastic DNA errors is accomplished by an error-correction mechanism, how can such an advanced and consistent system develop in such an error-prone environment. Even if some RNA does error correction, how did those first come about? The whole process of comparing one DNA strand against another strand, and repairing any mistakes found, is a highly intelligent thing to do. If only part of RNA does error correction, what happens to the DNA that is transcripted without it? And more importantly, how did the first such mechanism develop in any of the RNA, when ANY kind of RNA or DNA requires error-correction in order to avoid complete chaotic corruption?


[edit on 10-1-2010 by downisreallyup]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Edit: I don't see your problem about the 'DNA error correction', the process seems to be well described since at least 2008 (corrected by edit two). Some RNA performs 'error correction' and some does not. The process appears to have evolved from early defense mechanisms against rival molecular invaders.

Edit two: I misread the reference I reviewed, the process has been worked out since at least 2008, not 2002 when it was described.

Backtracking and Error Correction in DNA transcription

But there was already work starting to explain how the mechanism could have evolved as far back as 2002. DNA codes own error correction

[edit on 9/1/2010 by rnaa]


This paper on Backtracking does nothing to explain how this mechanism came into existence within an environment that would highly discourage such a development. In fact, this paper only goes to show that the mechanism is even more advanced than originally thought, since it actually can backtrack a certain distance to accomplish its task.

What I found very telling was the following quote from the paper:


The survival of living cells crucially depends on the fidelity with which genetic information, stored in nucleotide sequence of DNA, is processed during cell division (DNA replication) and protein synthesis (DNA transcription and mRNA translation). However, thermodynamics introduces significant fluctuations which would incur massive error rates if efficient proofreading mechanisms were not in place [Hopfield (1974)].


The survival of cells CRUCIALLY depends on the fidelity of genetic transformation. DNA exists inside of cells, and has no basis for any kind of "natural selection" development outside the context of a cell. So, how can a cell develop without such an error-correction mechanism? How can such a mechanism develop if the cell doesn't already exist? But the cell can't exist in any stable form unless the mechanism exists! Circular reasoning upon circular reasoning!

Why can't your mind imagine what I am saying? Is it because you are so wanting to believe this "theory" that you don't want to see the illogical premise of its very foundations?

You say that I don't have imagination to see how this hocus-pokus can occur, but it seems it requires an even better imagination to see how this supposed "bootstrap" process is really quite impossible.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


We dont know for sure. But that is abiogenesis, NOT biological evolution. Evolution assumes the first cell already exists (lets just assume it was created by god, for the sake of argument). From there on, we dont need any supernatural explanation for the diversity of life.
Abiogenesis is not proven, but since everything we observe in the universe till now is perfectly natural (materialistic), it is more likely that even life appearance was natural and we just dont know the exact process, than it was supernatural.. God of the Gaps, anyone?


[edit on 10-1-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 





Read all my posts again, and you will see that I have talked about ATP-Synthase from the start and I mentioned nothing about flagellum. You are confusing me with someone else. The reason I look at ATP-Synthase is because it has properties that really do appear to be irreducibly complex. You have "faith" they will find an answer, but I do not share that "faith" and I also believe that any explanation they present will be contrived, illogical, and incomplete.


My apologies, it seems we aren't on the same wave length. I did not misinterpret your previous posts. However, since the flagellum 'motor' is a more sophisticated (i.e. further evolved) ATP-Synthase pump than other more 'run of the mill' ATP-Synthase pumps, I referenced to that class on the 'assumption' this is where you were coming from as well.

Hence my remark that Behe's favorite mechanism, the flagellum, has been shown to be made up of several parts, all of which exist in cells already, and therefore can be selected for. This finding is in complete contradiction to Behe's premise and invalidates it absolutely.

Thus my remark about you wanting to dive deeper, into the evolution of those constituent parts, specifically the ATP-Synthase pump. So I ask again, is that the bottom of your quest for complete understanding of the most minuscule detail before you will accept the enormous weight of all the other evidence, or will you require something further?

An answer for the 'primitive' pump is also an answer for the flagellum motor, and vice versa, so it doesn't really matter whether you refered to flagellum or not.

Now, the argument for the ATP Synthase pump being 'irreducibly complex' appears to be that all 'modern cells' absolutely require ATP synthase, therefore it must have been around since the beginning of life, but it is far too complex to just pop up.

There is at least one major flaw in this argument. I'm sure there are others that I don't recognise off hand, but this one is enough to answer. One is that early 'life' did not require an ATP pump, so there is no requirement for it to have been around at the beginning.

We are getting into Abiogenesis territory here, so I'll just refer you to the excellent slide show describing the current best model for Abiogenesis: The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak which discusses the Chemistry - simple chemistry that requires no lightening bolts or muddy ooze. And no need for ATP-synthase, yet.



But we aren't talking about Abiogenesis, we are talking about the evolution of complex molecules long, long after Abiogenesis. I can't answer your question about how it evolved from pre-existing proteins and whatever. But since it wasn't required by the most primitive forms of life, I can say without doubt that it must have evolved over time, as surely as day follows night.

And this conclusion is NOT faith. It is Chemistry.

Edit: I am still considering your DNA replication/correction problem.

Edit Two: Wikipedia has a summary of current ideas on the evolution of ATP Synthases. It probably won't satisfy you though. I suspect that this stuff is so old that the modules that make it up are no longer used, so we can't see them anymore, maybe it replaced their function altogether.



The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution, where two subunits with their own functions have become associated and gained new functionality.[5][6] This coupling must have occurred early in the evolution of life as evidenced by essentially the same structure and processes of ATP synthase enzymes conserved in all kingdoms of life.[5] The F-ATP synthase shows large amounts of similarity both functionally and mechanically to the V-ATPase.[7] However whilst the F-ATP synthase generates ATP by utilising a proton gradient the V-ATPase is responsible for generating a proton gradient at the expense of ATP, generating pH values as low as 1. The F1 particle also shows significant similarity to hexameric DNA helicases and the FO particle shows some similarity to H+ powered flagellar motor complexes.[7] The α3β3 hexamer of the F1 particle shows significant structural similarity to hexameric DNA helicases; both form a ring with 3 fold rotational symmetry with a central pore. Both also have roles dependent on the relative rotation of a macromolecule within the pore; the DNA helicases use the helical shape of DNA to drive their motion along the DNA molecule and to detect supercoiling whilst the α3β3 hexamer uses the conformational changes due rotation of the γ subunit to drive an enzymatic reaction.[8]

The H+ motor of the FO particle shows great functional similarity to the H+ motors seen in flagellar motors.[7] Both feature a ring of many small alpha helical proteins which rotate relative to nearby stationary proteins using a H+ potential gradient as an energy source. This is, however, a fairly tenuous link - the overall structure of flagellar motors is far more complex than the FO particle and the ring of rotating proteins is far larger, with around 30 compared to the 10, 11 or 14 known in the FO complex.

The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+ motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drive the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse.[5][8] This would then evolve to become more efficient, and eventually develop into the complex ATP synthases seen today. Alternatively the DNA helicase/H+ motor complex may have had H+ pump activity, the ATPase activity of the helicase driving the H+ motor in reverse.[5] This could later evolve to carry out the reverse reaction and act as an ATP synthase.[6]



Edit three: I stuffed up the video, its YouTube , not Google (pressed the wrong button)

[edit on 10/1/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 10/1/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 10/1/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





That is, quite simply, wrong beyond comprehension. I sorry that you personally can't imagine a purpose to life without God, but happy that you have found God gives you a purpose. However you should understand that other people don't have the same problem

No you are wrong and your Lying. Be done with that it is absolutly
unacceptable to say life is just a space between two nothings but
that there is meaning to it. You are lying to yourself or fooling yourself
Pal. Your life without a supreme being (who is all spirit guiding us to hope
for bigger and better things if we are simply worthy of it) has no meaning.

None zilch. It is because he exists that there is a difference. Now there is no difference between having hope and not having hope? Why do you have to keep eliminating things to keep this crap alive in your mind. With what you believe
you have nothing at the end. That end is going to show up much sooner than you think.
Your belief is just assinine bullheaded stupidity. Bottom line crap that is
the first thing anyone looking to get out of faceing facts would reach for.
No big brain acheivement at all pal.
I can't believe how stupid you are going to look after thinking you're so smart for so long.
The first thing even you should realise is how little mankind even knows.
When it is all said and done and we both have solved the great mystery.
I will at least be as happy as you are.

There wouldn't even be any science without God. You're another over educated, can't think for self, so you can be a real pioneer, nonothing.

Good job. woo hoo

You can't even get a video right !

Wow gues I kind of went off there.
I dispise your smug azz attitudes.
Pretending to know it all.

The devil wears nada.
and
You know nada.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 





My comments about DNA error correction is one of logic, not biology. Any system, no matter what kind it is, must meet the basic tests of complete logical consistency. This is my whole problem with this theory. It presents a system that appears to be logical when looking at it generally, but not when probing it critically. It is based on a set of initial postulates that are founded on circular-reasoning. The circular-reasoning is this:

1) Biological changes are caused by errors in DNA replication.
2) Beneficial changes are preserved through accurate DNA replication.

So, the very thing that allows biological changes (mutations) is the very thing that prevents beneficial changes from being preserved.


This problem has a straight forward, logical answer: not all DNA coding errors are correctable. Physical damage is correctable, mutations are not.

From Wikipedia:



It is important to distinguish between DNA damage and mutation, the two major types of error in DNA. DNA damages and mutation are fundamentally different. Damages are physical abnormalities in the DNA, such as single and double strand breaks, 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine residues and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon adducts. DNA damages can be recognized by enzymes, and thus they can be correctly repaired if redundant information, such as the undamaged sequence in the complementary DNA strand or in a homologous chromosome, is available for copying. If a cell retains DNA damage, transcription of a gene can be prevented and thus translation into a protein will also be blocked. Replication may also be blocked and/or the cell may die.

In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce. Although distinctly different from each other, DNA damages and mutations are related because DNA damages often cause errors of DNA synthesis during replication or repair and these errors are a major source of mutation.

Given these properties of DNA damage and mutation, it can be seen that DNA damages are a special problem in non-dividing or slowly dividing cells, where unrepaired damages will tend to accumulate over time. On the other hand, in rapidly dividing cells, unrepaired DNA damages that do not kill the cell by blocking replication will tend to cause replication errors and thus mutation. The great majority of mutations that are not neutral in their effect are deleterious to a cell’s survival. Thus, in a population of cells comprising a tissue with replicating cells, mutant cells will tend to be lost. However infrequent mutations that provide a survival advantage will tend to clonally expand at the expense of neighboring cells in the tissue. This advantage to the cell is disadvantageous to the whole organism, because such mutant cells can give rise to cancer. Thus DNA damages in frequently dividing cells, because they give rise to mutations, are a prominent cause of cancer. In contrast, DNA damages in infrequently dividing cells are likely a prominent cause of aging.[11]


Note that the great majority of mutations are neutral, making no difference to the cells operation. Of the remainder, most are deleterious to the cell and are lost along with the cell. The smallest number are immediately beneficial to the cell. And that mutation that is beneficial to the cell, may in turn be neutral, deleterious, or beneficial to the organism as a whole.

It is the small number of mutations that end up being beneficial to the organism that drives Darwinian 'slow' evolution. It is the accumulation of neutral mutations that create a pool from which Gouldian 'Puncuated Equilibrium' to selects.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Thank you for your kind words if tolerance, love, and morality.

Tell me how mankind lived morally before he learned of your God.

How is it the Chinese developed such a higher civilization before contact with Europeans if the were out murdering everyone and raping their own daughters?

What a load of bollocks you spout. You have absolutely no idea about my belief or otherwise in a Supreme Being. Christ spoke of tolerance towards others. Love thy neighbor.

Your post is proof positive that you are the one that is morally bankrupt. If you get your morality from your God, I wonder what that says about your God.

P.S. Thank you for so kindly pointing out the problem with the video.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



Oh you know what? Your little guilt game belongs in a box of cracker jack.
I don't play that way in case you didn't notice. You can't even take a
friendly ass chewing from me.

What will you do when you find out respect and fear are the same thing?

I tell you what. You are going to vibrate very simply. for your sake I hope
you get more hands on experience with life cause I really don't want to
see it for anyone. If you have have a chance of ever becoming truly alive I hope you do.

i really don't mind hearing your side of things so much.
When you do it like you know it all it makes me want to puke.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilw85
 



A few questions about what you're saying:


A Few Answers about what your saying, (A Response, in E minor)


My mom's genes felt that since we live in the cold that it should tell the baby genes to be better suited to the cold? Can mother's genes "teach" the fetus genes?


Beneficial mutations change a species through "Genetic Drift", this is a process whereby; out of any number of random mutations that occur during the collective development of "Reproduction" a certain amount will be beneficial (To survival), a certain amount will be detrimental, and the vast majority will have no bearing on the organism.

Those that are detrimental will reduce the overall likelihood of the carrier of that mutation surviving long enough to reproduce, or be selected for reproduction, and thus, the mutation dies out.

Those with beneficial mutations will increase the overall likelihood of the carrier of that mutation surviving long enough to reproduce, or being selected for reproduction, and thus, the mutation survives, and spreads.

Over time (Many Generations), a successful mutation will disseminate throughout the breeding population, and be carried by all the members of that population.

This is known as "Genetic Drift"


And where did the gene for abstract thinking suddenly pop in there?


It did not.

Abstract thinking is a "Process" that is dependent upon many different factors.

The ability to remember events, the ability to hold have many memories in our conscious minds at once, the ability to conceptualize changes in those memories, the ability of advanced perception, etc, etc, etc....

What we know as "Abstract Thinking" is not really a *THING*, it is the cumulative process of *MANY THINGS* that add up to this "Abstract Thinking"

What separates Humans from other animals is the EXTENT to which we think abstractly... not that we *DO* and they *DO NOT*


What benefit does this provide to become the "fittest"?


Abstract thinking is the ability to plan, and plot.

Sharp fangs are deadly, but thrown rocks are also.

Sharp pointed sticks are useful in defense, as are handguns, and tanks.

"Abstract Thinking" is a survival mechanism, whose mechanism follows "Survival of the fittest" by many different ways:

Escaping predators
Finding food
Making tools
Building fire
Locating fresh water
etc, etc, etc...


And why aren't humans so well "adapted" that other animals can exist in much harsher environments than us?(extreme heat,cold,darkness)


Because for the majority of "Human" existence, we have not been exposed to these "Harsh" climates, and thus, have not had to "Adapt" to them.

We are not well suited for cold as Wolves, because our environment was tropical and sub tropical.

The wolves environment was more harsh, and thus, they are adapted to it more than we.


And what benefit would it be that bacteria would start the evolutionary trend toward a larger creature?


Strength in numbers, for one.

Some bacteria prey on other bacteria, and thus, congregation in large colonies is a benefit for mutual defense.

In addition, the increased "Power" that the colony has to offer, ensures that it can acquire more resources than individuals.

IT is the same reason that nations have ONE BIG military, instead of many small ones.

Cooperation offers ALL members of a group a better chance of survival than they would have alone, and thus, is better for individual survival.


And how did the evolutionary tree start the trend to birds?


Small dinosaurs eat small, fast creatures, that move along the forest floor.

By hiding in the trees, the dinosaurs can ambush potential prey.

The first "Wing" was probably no more than a small flap of skin under the upper arms, that provided some "Directional Control" during its ambush descent.

This allowed those creatures with the "Proto-Wing" to be more successful in hunting, and thus in survival and reproduction.

Over time, and successive mutations, this became a larger "Flap" of skin...

Then it was covered with hair.

Then the hair thickened, and hollowed.

The the hollow hair "Tube" sprouted "Hairs" of its own.

Eventually the "Falling Ambush Dinosaur" was so adapted to moving air to effect its velocity, that it could fly, instead of just a short glide, or controlled fall.


And why did humans live for 100,000 years in small caves and tribes with minimal advancement, then suddenly around 4000bc great civilizations sprang up and built stone henges and pyramids?


Language, and tool use.

Language allows for the communication of abstract concepts "Go here", "Hunt this" "Make Fire" etc...

This allowed the "Tribes" of early humans to be more efficiently and speedily organized.

The increasing vocabulary "Selected" for larger memory capacity, and increased cognitive abilities.

Tool use did the same thing, in that our tools required larger brains, and our larger brains allowed for more complex tools, and our more complex tools required larger brains.... etc, etc, etc...


Why is every culture since 4000bc suddenly desperate to understand a god who made them?


Curiosity is a survival mechanism when your "Claws" or "Fangs" is the usage of Intelligence and Abstract Thinking.

A creature whose survival depends upon abstract thinking, will die if it does not think abstractly.

Thus, over time our questions about ourselves, and our environment became more and more complex...

Language is a funny thing, like mathematics... in that you can put the components of math or language together in ways that "SEEM" to make sense.... but actually don't

For example... what is the Tangent of 90 degrees?


The answer, is infinity.


The tangent is the ratio between the adjacent side (adjacent to the angle you are measuring), and the opposite side of a right triangle.

A right triangle, with an angle of interest of 90 degrees, has a ratio between the adjacent and opposite sides of 1:INFINITY

The reason that this is not a correct usage of trigonometry, is because, if you have a Right triangle that has 2 angles of 90 degrees... then it is by definition, no longer a triangle... and you are actually measuring an infinitely high *RECTANGLE*


The question "Why are we here" presupposes an objective CREATOR.


Why is a question regarding purpose, and purpose is an invention of Abstract thinking.

Long story short... we like to understand things, by pretending that they are human.

We ascribe human qualities to things all around us that are NOT human, because this is how our perception of reality works.

HUMANS have "WHY's" for what we do...

"Why did you build a house" -> "because you need someplace to live"

The very nature of the question *IMPLIES* human causation.


When you ask "WHY ARE WE HERE" you are really asking for a *HUMAN* answer... not a *TRUTHFUL* answer.

Continued...



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Why has every Athiest/Agnostic I have ever met evolved to be totally preoccupied with trying to prove there is no god?


Because people want answers to all of life's little mysteries, the big questions, the ones that keep you up at night.

Atheists want to "Disprove God" mainly because they want to stop people from following "God's Commandments"

and by "God's Commandments" what I really mean to say, is HUMAN COMMANDMENTS DISGUISED AS GOD's COMMANDMENTS.


Religion is the EASIEST way to get large numbers of people to do your bidding... if you know how to sway their emotions.

Many MANY atrocities have been committed in the *NAME* of god, that had absolutely nothing to do with *GOD* at all.

They were all engineered by clever snake oil salesmen, promising eternal salvation for the small price of a yearly tax, and your virgin daughters...

Oh, and the best livestock of your flock for... "Offerings" to god.

And the Eternal blessing of GOD for you and your descendants... if you just march over to those peoples land and kill them all.


Atheists could not CARE what you believe.

Atheists are concerned with what you DO.


And faith has been used to justify MANY murders, rapes, genocides, etc... because we cannot really ever *KNOW* if god actually commands anything or not.

All we have to go on, is the "Religious Leaders" claiming "Divine Inspiration"


And assuming that a Religious leader is somehow "ABOVE" using that trust for their own benefit, then you are naively blind.

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted."
-Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse Dune


How can we be 100% sure that the forces upon the Earth were exactly the same as they are now?


Your question lacks the specifics necessary in order for it to be meaningfully answered.


How can you tell that your perception of reality is the truth?


Perception is the only guide that humans have.

In all honesty... We humans do not know the answer to that question.


Why do you care if others accept your reality?


Because it is essential for society, and interaction.

If we did not agree on what the words that we were typing meant, then communication would be impossible.

My reality says that "The sky is blue on earth at noon with no clouds"

This is dependent upon MANY different assumptions, for example... that we all AGREE on just WHAT color "Blue" actually *IS*

If My "Blue" was your "Green", then my statement would be TRUE to me, but FALSE to you.


We must AGREE on our perception of reality, because that is how we communicate, share, cooperate, and advance together, as opposed to individually.



Why is the universe so orderly?


Because we perceive it to be that way.

Even if the universe were COMPLETELY different from what it is now, we would be used to it, and thus, would perceive it to be "Orderly"


What determined the laws of the universe.


What makes you think that they were "determined"?


What keeps them from changing?


What makes you think that they COULD change?


If you throw a smashed up rolex watch into a dryer and turned it on, how long would it take before the watch would reassemble itself?


If you filled a balloon with molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen, and then exposed it to a flame, what is the probability that the trillions of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms will *ALL* "Randomly" self organize into water vapor?


Just wondering.


Just answering.

-Edrick



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


genetic drift = more randomness that's all
It could be said this proves even less.


Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X.
Calvin Freiburger




[edit on 10-1-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



genetic drift = more randomness that's all
It could be said this proves even less.


Genetic Drift is Deterministic, not random.

I'm terribly sorry, but your presumption is fallacious.


Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X.
Calvin Freiburger


Yes... I think that was my point


-Edrick



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by downisreallyup
 





My comments about DNA error correction is one of logic, not biology. Any system, no matter what kind it is, must meet the basic tests of complete logical consistency. This is my whole problem with this theory. It presents a system that appears to be logical when looking at it generally, but not when probing it critically. It is based on a set of initial postulates that are founded on circular-reasoning. The circular-reasoning is this:

1) Biological changes are caused by errors in DNA replication.
2) Beneficial changes are preserved through accurate DNA replication.

So, the very thing that allows biological changes (mutations) is the very thing that prevents beneficial changes from being preserved.


This problem has a straight forward, logical answer: not all DNA coding errors are correctable. Physical damage is correctable, mutations are not.

From Wikipedia:



It is important to distinguish between DNA damage and mutation, the two major types of error in DNA. DNA damages and mutation are fundamentally different. Damages are physical abnormalities in the DNA, such as single and double strand breaks, 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine residues and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon adducts. DNA damages can be recognized by enzymes, and thus they can be correctly repaired if redundant information, such as the undamaged sequence in the complementary DNA strand or in a homologous chromosome, is available for copying. If a cell retains DNA damage, transcription of a gene can be prevented and thus translation into a protein will also be blocked. Replication may also be blocked and/or the cell may die.

In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce. Although distinctly different from each other, DNA damages and mutations are related because DNA damages often cause errors of DNA synthesis during replication or repair and these errors are a major source of mutation.

Given these properties of DNA damage and mutation, it can be seen that DNA damages are a special problem in non-dividing or slowly dividing cells, where unrepaired damages will tend to accumulate over time. On the other hand, in rapidly dividing cells, unrepaired DNA damages that do not kill the cell by blocking replication will tend to cause replication errors and thus mutation. The great majority of mutations that are not neutral in their effect are deleterious to a cell’s survival. Thus, in a population of cells comprising a tissue with replicating cells, mutant cells will tend to be lost. However infrequent mutations that provide a survival advantage will tend to clonally expand at the expense of neighboring cells in the tissue. This advantage to the cell is disadvantageous to the whole organism, because such mutant cells can give rise to cancer. Thus DNA damages in frequently dividing cells, because they give rise to mutations, are a prominent cause of cancer. In contrast, DNA damages in infrequently dividing cells are likely a prominent cause of aging.[11]


Note that the great majority of mutations are neutral, making no difference to the cells operation. Of the remainder, most are deleterious to the cell and are lost along with the cell. The smallest number are immediately beneficial to the cell. And that mutation that is beneficial to the cell, may in turn be neutral, deleterious, or beneficial to the organism as a whole.

It is the small number of mutations that end up being beneficial to the organism that drives Darwinian 'slow' evolution. It is the accumulation of neutral mutations that create a pool from which Gouldian 'Puncuated Equilibrium' to selects.


I really do thank you for having an intelligent discussion about these difficult questions that so far nobody has been able to solidly answer. They use terms like "likely" or "appear" and expect me to have full faith in their logic.

You ARE giving me good things to look into and to consider, which is more than anyone else has been able to do, even college professors.

The one question that I never get an answer to, even from anyone here at ATS is "where are all the failed attempts, both in the fossil record and in current living creatures?" What I mean is, where is the evidence of "mechanisms in progress." While I can see how a mechanism may be useful at various stages of its development, I can't really see how it could be useful during EVERY phase of its progress towards usefulness. Please tell me what your answer would be to this problem. Remember, since you admit that useful improvements come infrequently and over a long period of time, and that they come from mutations, which are really unfixable damage, then I would expect to see:

1) vast numbers of fossils showing all manner of random mechanisms in various stages of development, most of which are useless or detrimental, and a smaller number that are actually useful. This is based on the premise that even if natural selection preserves a useful trait, it still took a vast number of neutral or negative traits to get to that point.

2) large number of mechanisms in living organisms/creatures that are partially developed, either as a neutral but useless mechanism, or a negative mechanism that was previously neutral, but has now become negative, and which hasn't yet been eliminated from the creatures genes.

So, the following scenarios can indeed happen logically:

1) Helpful mechanism becomes a neutral or harmful mechanism through mutation.
2) Neutral mechanism becomes a harmful or helpful mechanism through mutation. Helpful would then be preserved and harmful would be eliminated, but the elimination would take a lot of time also.
3) Harmful mechanism becomes neutral through mutation before it has a chance to completely disappear.

Now, remember, these should not be unusual scenarios, but should be pervasive, given the wide swath of mechanisms present in the animal kingdom.

Also, along with this, is the notion that there is no reason why legs and arms should ONLY form on both sides of a creature, each being controlled by the opposite side of the brain, or that they should ONLY form at the front and back of the torso. Statistically, if the process is random, there should be arms and legs in many others places of various creature's bodies also. While ultimately natural selection will cause the most beneficial traits to endure, there should be many traits that are in various stages of evolution, whether harmful, neutral, or beneficial.

This should not be for just some weird creatures, but for all creatures, since with a random mutation scheme, evolution is never completed... thermodynamics is still present, able to cause DNA damage, and eventual mutation.


[edit on 10-1-2010 by downisreallyup]





 
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join