It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Human evolution: A simple calculation indicates that human evolution may have been turbo charged !

page: 1
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Earlier today, I happened to be accessing the Human Genome Projects (HGP) website and reading up on a summary of what the Project has learned so far in it's study regarding the human genome.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Project, it's an international scientific research collaboration with the primary aim or goal to successfully generate a complete map or sequencing of all the chemical base pairs which make up DNA and to identify and map the approximately 20,000–25,000 genes of the human genome from both a physical and functional standpoint. In 2003, the Project released a complete sequence "map" of the human genome.

Amongst the summary of their results, is the following very interesting statistic:


The human genome contains 3164.7 million chemical nucleotide bases (A, C, T, and G).


Simply put, the human genome consists of all the chromosomes which in turn are made up of DNA. Now DNA can be likened to a ladder where each "rung" is made up of 2 of these nucleotide bases connected together ... known as a "base pair".
So according to the HGP statistic mentioned above, therefore the entire human genome consists of just over 3 billion of these base pairs. Picture this as an incredibly long ladder with over 3 billion individual rungs. Thats an incredible amount of stored information but essential to create a human.
It's important that you understand that each one of those "rungs" had to be created randomly by nature and is the basis of evolution ... initially simple structures becoming more complex over time and becoming incorporated into the organisms genetic structure. This process can also be referred to as genetic mutation.


Now that figure of 3 billion rang a bell.

We're told that the age of the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years and furthermore, that the 1st evidence of life (simple cells) dates back to approximately 3.8 billion years. So we can see that life appeared not to long after the creation of the Earth !.

I've always assumed that genetic mutations tended to occur relatively slowly and accumulated over long periods of time through a process of natural selection ... but here's the hard to believe part ... at least for me.

We have a total of approximately 3.164 billion nucleotide base pairs.
We have a period of approximately 3.8 billion years since the dawn of life.

So, a simple bit of maths shows that to get from that original extremely simple cell to a human, means that random evolution coupled with natural selection pressures had to SUCCESSFULLY add a completely new rung to the ladder on average almost EVERY SINGLE YEAR !!

Now that wouldn't be so hard to comprehend, but we now have to factor in the understanding that the majority of random mutations are at best, non-lethal to the host organism, and at worst, deadly to the host organism. Adding new rungs to a ladder is a completely random event and no guarantee that it will benefit the host organism.
So we can assume that to compensate for the vast majority of non-viable rungs, that we need an evolutionary rate that far exceeds one rung every year and most likely would have to increase that rate of rung addition to perhaps 2, 3 or even more rungs added per year to ensure at least one non-lethal rung being added and the organism successfully evolving through mutation. Even if the added rung was non-lethal, nature would still have to compensate for potential losses of the organism, and therefore the newly added rung, through early death before it could breed and pass on the newly acquired mutation.

Now, this may just be me misinterpreting how evolution actually did manage to get from that single primitive cell to us humans ... but simple maths seems to imply that something highly unusual had to have occurred to keep the number of viable and non-lethal rungs being continuously added at a rate sufficient to reach the current number of just over 3 billion.

Now I have to state quite clearly that I'm not a believer in Creationalism but after having done the above simple calculations, I have to now say that I can't really credit our current understanding of how evolution and mutations work as being the complete and simple answer either. I'm beginning to believe that we're missing some vital and key component in our understanding of how evolution REALLY works.
edit on 26/12/10 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Why couldn't it be possible that you would gain a large number at any one time instead of a slow average like your stating?

If this was true then it would be very easy to prove I would think. Take a dna sample of a person, wait a few years and take it again. It should look different according to your theory. I didn't think our dna changed liked that, but I don't know much about dna



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Why couldn't it be possible that you would gain a large number at any one time instead of a slow average like your stating?

If this was true then it would be very easy to prove I would think. Take a dna sample of a person, wait a few years and take it again. It should look different according to your theory. I didn't think our dna changed liked that, but I don't know much about dna


I would assume that most mutations because of their random nature would only occur at a given time in just a very few individuals within a species. I can't see how the very same mutation would occur within the same period of time in say 5, 10, 20 or more individuals of a given species.

So even if the same mutation occured in say 2 individuals and it happened to be a non-lethal mutation, those 2 individuals would have to live long enough to pass on that new mutation. Being a violent world, the odds would be stacked against them. So to ensure that that particular mutation eventually got passed on, nature would have needed to randomly recreate that same mutation in other members ... but this would impose a delay as the same mutation may not occur for many more years.

And yet, it's obvious to see that the rate of acquiring beneficial, or at least non-lethal, mutations had to happen consistently in time periods of much less than a year ... which is very, very difficult to come up with a suitable mechanism to account for it.
edit on 26/12/10 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Your ignoring the very real possiblity that life travels across space on material ejected from planets.....

This would explain the amount of time needed.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

I feel that the theory of evolution is in its infancy and more is being added to it as more evidence comes in
especially with genetics. Perhaps evolution will get a whole new quantum-leap in understanding that is if it is not held back by fundamentalist thinking.

This artical from Time magazine examines how DNA might rewrite itself


What's more, any such effects of nurture (environment) on a species' nature (genes) were not supposed to happen so quickly. Charles Darwin, whose On the Origin of Species celebrated its 150th anniversary in November, taught us that evolutionary changes take place over many generations and through millions of years of natural selection. But Bygren and other scientists have now amassed historical evidence suggesting that powerful environmental conditions (near death from starvation, for instance) can somehow leave an imprint on the genetic material in eggs and sperm.

www.time.com...



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Think of it like a database, not a ladder. Most of those genes are dormant.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
Think of it like a database, not a ladder. Most of those genes are dormant.

It doesn't matter whether the gene is dormant or not because each gene is made up of many nucleotides (rungs) and each one of those nucleotides was inserted into the chromosome randomly. If the insertion wasn't fatal, eventually it got passed on to the descendants.

What I am saying is that each insertion was created randomly by nature on average in one year or less.
Such an astonishing rate of mutation goes completely against what we're told that evolution/mutation is a very, very gradual process occurring over great lengths of time.

Here I'm showing in a very simple and unambiguous manner that evolution in the human species proceeded instead at a break neck rate and therefore a mechanism needs to be uncovered to explain it.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Darwinian theory is a very questionable subject because we are expected to believe that we have evolved from being a single celled organism (effectively an amoeba) into a highly complex biological creatures by random gene mutations. It sound highly unlikely to me considering that there is no physical proof that i know of where a lesser evolved form of our selves has been discovered. Oh and apes don't count we are not evolved from them we only have similar DNA which can be said to a certain extent of a gold fish.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I think you are on the right path.

Given the Margin of Error we are dealing with in guesstimating billions of years, being off the mark by a specific % is understandable.

Also, years have not always been the same length, and we don't fully understand the origins of the moon yet. So we have large unknown variables that will also account for the "missing time".

Include other things you can come up with, like varying levels of radiation exposure, celestial events, extinctions, diseases, etc. This all gives us increasingly higher degrees of uncertainty.

But I am very fond of the theory that DNA is like a Tree stump. You can count the rings and tell the age. That's really a cool idea. Hope it pans out.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Good observation. There are many stories of alien abduction lately that points at a hybridisation program currently going on. Evidence of past similar events could be found in the jump between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. I am not sure how much DNA is left of past species to verify results, but if someone was playing 'god' then the consequences of their work would remain. Science has made great ground, but still has a long way to go to truly understand this world.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
You would be a fool to consider the miracle that is you, a random sequence of favorable events. There is an infinite intelligence behind the creation of everything. No matter what our origins or the magnitude of our evolutionary struggles, above it ALL is the singularity. This singularity emits an energy so powerful as to create all of the realm densities many are starting to witness. Beyond that singularity portal , somewhere undescribably beyond, is God. You just so happen to be the child of the highest, most intelligent and loving creator of ALL.

Don't take my word for it, everyone is going to see it soon for themselves.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Well just as we humans have an energy or spirit or intelligent consciousness that animates the body so does the universe from the Atom to the planets from the microcosm to the macrocosm. To ignore this fact seems absurd. And to think that evolution is random in light of this obvious stimulation of energy it seem obvious there is an intelligence driving our evolution over the aeons of time. Perhaps this energy/entity/intelligence has always existed and projected itself into form to learn how to become one with form and slowly got better at it over time learning the best forms to take to fully express its intelligence through form. WE are the fragments of that intelligence so to speak. In other words we are not the form but the intelligence that molds and manipulates the form into what we see feel hear touch smell etc. today.

To think that such intelligence as we manifest today just happened randomly makes no sense it must have existed before it entered matter and took form. It would be like saying a fine car just eventually came together over time at random without any intelligence directing the matter into the forms it takes to put the car together. The car like all designs evolved from simpler designs through trial and error. Just because we do not yet fully understand how the human body and other higher life forms are put together and animated with intelligence and consciousness are designed does not mean there is no pre-existing intelligence behind it.
edit on 26-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   
First: There is no ONE GIANT LADDER of DNA, there are 22 short PAIRS (i.e. semi-redundent copies of genes), and a pair of "sex chromosomes".

Second; when you double something over and over again, it takes very few iterations for that thing to explode numerically.
Most viable mutations are a result of "Gene-Duplications".
That is the successful replication of an entire piece of genetic material, whilst leaving the original intact in the gamete/somatic cell.
This usually results in "Over expression" of that gene (ie protein/enzyme/whatever) , and that is usually beneficial to the species (not always).
If the mutation (which in this case occurred in the Gamete, and resulted in what is considered Viable Offspring), is beneficial, it is usually kept in the gene pool.

Q.E.MFD.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by myster0
First: There is no ONE GIANT LADDER of DNA, there are 22 short PAIRS (i.e. semi-redundent copies of genes), and a pair of "sex chromosomes".

Agreed ... but in this instance I tried to simplify the concept of genetics, genomes, chromosomes, base pairs, nucleotides, etc for those of our ATS members who are NOT clued up on biology and to make the underlying concept of my thread understandable.
YOU may understand genes, chromosomes, etc ... but others may not be so fortunate and so I took the liberty of joining each of those separate chromosome "mini ladders" into a single GIANT LADDER. Doing so does NOT affect the premise of my thread.



Second; when you double something over and over again, it takes very few iterations for that thing to explode numerically.

Huh ??? what is this "thing" that you're doubling over and over ?

In my thread, I'm discussing how the very most basic dna strand that was present in the earliest cell 3.8 billion years ago has had additional nucleotides ("rungs") added to it over and over to arrive at the present number of approximately 3.1 billion nucleotides in the human genome.
This is a sequential adding of nucleotide rungs ... one after the other over those billions of years.

My calculation implies that the rate at which nucleotide "rungs" needed to be added to arrive at the current value of 3.1 billion nucleotides in the human genome is approximately one per year over that 3.8 billion year time span.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by myster0
Second; when you double something over and over again, it takes very few iterations for that thing to explode numerically.

Huh ??? what is this "thing" that you're doubling over and over ?


This "thing" is anything you want it to be

Mice and rabbits are good illustrations of this, but in this instance I am refering to "Megabytes".
That is to say millions of units of information, specifically genetic code.
It takes very few duplications of a genome to reach the 3GB that is a human.
(remember, it's mostly repetition)

Yes, it would take a long time if all the DNA was added a base-pair at a time, but that's not how it actually happened.
edit on 26-12-2010 by myster0 because: typos



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
very good post. must say lately it is hard to find posts worth reading at ats. so in 20 or so lines you have managed to blow evolution theory to bits.
hold up. what are ppl being taught in schools? i thought there was evidence for this stuff?
as more evidance is discovered ppl r finding out a lot of holes in those theories, and the only theory holding up so far is one. totaly agrees with scientific finds. maybe now its worth investigating that.
this is like when the churches controlled ppl and fed them lies about everything, and when ppl started to find out actual scientific truths they woke up. too lae though they fell right into the next (current) state.

only thing holding up so far is one. truth is not easy to get to though, like everything else in life.
maybe a hint is: truth is always least popular. not the cool thing. ppl will hide/mask/obscure/slander and FIGHT the truth for personal financial/power gains. this is the way the world runs. this is the way the 'institution' runs, it being the 'church' before or the 'current' institution.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by myster0

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by myster0
Second; when you double something over and over again, it takes very few iterations for that thing to explode numerically.

Huh ??? what is this "thing" that you're doubling over and over ?


This "thing" is anything you want it to be

Mice and rabbits are good illustrations of this, but in this instance I am refering to "Megabytes".
That is to say millions of units of information, specifically genetic code.
It takes very few duplications of a genome to reach the 3GB that is a human.
(remember, it's mostly repetition)

Yes, it would take a long time if all the DNA was added a base-pair at a time, but that's not how it actually happened.
edit on 26-12-2010 by myster0 because: typos



Strands of nucleotide sequences are not, to the best of my knowledge, simply floating around pre-constructed, to be randomly picked up and added to an existing chromosome strand. If they were, then these free floating strands of 2, 3, 5, 20 or whatever length the strand was would in their own right be considered to be DNA fragments ...and DNA is entirely the product of internal NOT external cellular processes.

So random mutation a.k.a. evolution, would increase the length of an existing chromosome by on average one base-pair at a time. Sure, maybe very rarely a couple of nucleotides may be added at the same time but that certainly wouldn't alter the overall result of approximately one nucleotide base-pair addition per year over 3.8 billion years.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I'll simply stick to the theory that there was nothing "random" about these mutations and that they got engineerd by beings more advanced than us, for their own convenience (slaves)

It's the only viable explanation that keeps the sudden leap from cavepainters to full blown mathematicians and astronomers into account.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 





So random mutation a.k.a. evolution, would increase the length of an existing chromosome by on average one base-pair at a time. Sure, maybe very rarely a couple of nucleotides may be added at the same time but that certainly wouldn't alter the overall result of approximately one nucleotide base-pair addition per year over 3.8 billion years.


Lenght of a chromosome can be increased or decreased easily, by adding or copying entire genes or parts, not just single nucleotides. There are genomes much bigger than human genome present in much simpler and older organisms - the biggest genome has 670 billion base pairs, and is present in simple single celled Amoeba dubia. There is no relationship between genome lenght and position of organism in the tree of life.

The part that is actually used for coding in human genome makes up just a few % of its lenght. Most of genome is not transcribed.
edit on 26/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Your assuming these mutations happen one at a time and a year at a time?

I don't think there is any evidence to support this. If there is please don't be upset I simply have not seen any.

It seems to me that many of these pairs would sometimes (if not always I don't know) be added at the same time when mutations occur. I know this isn't the case but what if a billion of these pairs got added at once, evolution would happen very quickly.



**Of course I guess the person above me made this not matter at all.
edit on 26-12-2010 by NWtoHide because: proved irrelevant




top topics



 
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join