It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Supercharged Evolution, eh? This is what happens when you extrapolate from a position of Ignorance.
In all honesty, i think you just dont fully understand evolution and thats why your having a hard time figuring this out.
Not trying to be rude, per se, but I think this OP is a mockery of science.
A monstrous deficit of understanding has been shown by the OP
... on average, ONE NEW AND NON-LETHAL nucleotide base pair would have to be added on average PER YEAR to the genome of ALL the intermediary organisms that have existed and linking humans to that earliest single cell.
This takes into account the unimaginable number of mutational failures that must have been occurring continuously at the SAME TIME ...
Originally posted by OZtracized
I agree with you entirely.
It seems to me that the odds are stacked against a mutation not only being successful but passed on to future generations and cementing its place in the gene pool.
And that's just one.
One a year? I should buy more lottery tickets.
There is no doubt that extremely complex organisms such as ourselves will evolve, one painfully slow step at a time, I just can't help but feel that a few billion years is not nearly enough.
...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 !!
The mechanics of evolution are something that can be debated for the next ten thousand years, in all likelihood.
About the best thing we can do is begin cataloging DNA within our own species and within others and wait to see what comes of the data. That is the main problem with the theoretical mechanics of evolution - a complete lack of data to develop any kind of model that can be tested.
It also doesn't help that we live in a microwave society that wants to have an answer for everything right now. This is partly stemming from our test-taking methods and education culture - an honest "I don't know" is not acceptable in our education climate. You are expected to know or to give it your best BS and pray it's acceptable. This has a very negative impact on our scientific research fields, as scientists and society demand that we know or give it our best BS attempt, rather than leaving it on the shelf to muse over.
I'm by no means an expert - but it would seem, to me, that we simply don't know enough about the mechanics of DNA mutations and how they impact populations to really have much to say on the issue.
...we will soon possess the ability to genetically modify our own species, and therefor open up an entirely new chapter.
While knowing where we have been is pretty important... driving the car and staring at the rear-view mirror tends to result in rather bad things.
3.1 billion advantageous mutations spread over 3.8 billion years = approximately one advantageous mutation each and every year.
...it is totally possible to DOUBLE! the size of a genome, resulting in a new viable species, simply by a failure of the gametes to form properly during meiosis. with reference to your theory, then, a chromosomal doubling could account for potentially hundreds of millions of years.
please understand (and this goes for you, too, soficrow) that no one here is trying to be rude or closed minded, so far as i can tell. i am glad that you are interested, and i am always interested in hearing alternative science. if you understood the genetic mechanisms that give rise to mutation, it would be very clear to you why you are receiving such a negative response.
Work in our lab covers a broad range of topics unified by one theme: the protein-folding problem. Through biochemistry and genetics we investigate the mechanisms of protein folding and the consequences of misfolding.
Because protein-folding problems are universal, we move back and forth between simple and complex organisms (yeast, fruit flies, plants, mice, and human cells). We investigate how protein conformational changes provide epigenetic mechanisms of inheritance, sculpt phenotypic landscapes, shape evolutionary process...
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by tauristercus
Well rats. I try to defend you and you start a new thread! Here's my last post from your last thread:
…perhaps I'm the one being particularly dense regarding my conclusions and it's being reflected in my choice of topic within this and the preceding thread.
After all, we apparently have so many experts here ready to weigh in with "how evolution REALLY works" so that surely must mean I'm talking rubbish.
If you believe that 3.1 billion insertions over a period of 3.8 billion years does NOT equate to an average of 1 insertion per year, then I'll be very interested in seeing your mathematical reasoning.
…the most advanced organism on the planet (we humans), have managed to acquire just over 3.1 billion nucleotide base pairs within our genome.
…"The most complex" doesn't really mean anything unless
you focus it down quite a bit, …
If you mean at a genetic level, the answer is clearly no. The genome of
an organism consists of the complete DNA sequence, including coding and
non-coding genes. Of the number of animals for which is there is good
genome data (about 3800 so far), the smallest known genome is about 39
million base pairs (Mb) in Trichoplax adhaerens, a placozoan. Placozoans
are very tiny organisms whith only about 20-30 cells. On the other hand,
the largest genome is not in an elephant or a whale or a human, but rather
in Protopterus aethiopicus, the marbled lungfish (about 130,340 Mb). Mice
and humans come in at quite a modest 3000 Mb. A good place to look at
this information can be found here:
The only manner in which humans might be considered to be the
most "complex" organisms on the planet is in mental cognition and
neocortical complexity, and even here it's contentious. Humans do not
have the biggest brains on the planet - our brains are about 1.4 kg (3.08
pounds). That honor goes to the Sperm Whale (physter catadon) at 7.8 kg
(17 lbs 3 oz). However, whale brains have less neocortex and seem to be
laid out on a simpler, less densely interconnected plan. So it's not just
size, it's also brain/body ratios, number of layers of cells, number of
interneuronal synapses, organization, and a very large host of other
factors. Humans do not always come out on top with these types of
comparisons (in several elephants and orcas come out way ahead).
A good basic web site on this is here:
An excellent site comparing mammalian brain neuroanatomy can be found here:
Humans also are not the only (or sometimes even the best) problem
solvers. Chimps and dolphins use tools, dogs and primates have been shown
to be able to lie (a very cognitively complex function, meaning they
understand truth and how to manipulate it to get what they want) and
african gray parrots show a remarkable ability at language use.
So whether those 3.1 billion DNA additions occurred gradually and steadily over time or whether the 3.1 billion DNA additions occurred in distinct spurts interspersed with relatively quiet periods ... I still find myself pondering the overall impressive rate at which DNA has successfully mutated since that 1st original simple cell ancestor and what type of evolutionary mechanism could possibly account for it.
Originally posted by Byrd
Mutations occur in living cells all the time. In multicellular organisms (like humans) we are constantly generating cells with mutations. Some of these mutations simply cause dead cells. Some affect the way we live. Some affect our survival rate (this has been shown in some recent twin studies.)
...these 3.1 billion nucleotides are the result of random insertions that did NOT result in the organisms death...
...Everyone of those 3.1 billion nucleotide base pairs were ADDITIONS to the ENDS of existing chromosomes and making them longer....
Originally posted by tauristercus
Oh, and another point.
Everyone of those 3.1 billion nucleotide base pairs were ADDITIONS to the ENDS of existing chromosomes and making them longer. In other words, all the other mutations that resulted only in a change to an existing location WITHIN a germline chromosome and did not alter it's length, are ignored. We're only interested in mutations that extended the lengths of the chromosomes from their original tiny lengths in the 1st primeval cells to arrive at the current, many times longer, chromosomal lengths in humans.
So no matter how we try to side-step or sweep under the rug the evidence, we're left with the visible fact that nature was flat out for 3.8 billion years enlarging the chromosomal lengths at an astonishingly rapid rate and in those 3.8 billion years, succeeded in enlarging the total chromosomal length from essentially zero to 3.1 billion.