Evolution courtesy of Darwin ... no longer works for me ... here's why !

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Disclamatory notification:


Please be aware that the contents, statements and any conclusions contained within this thread are NOT in any way advocating creationism as the one and only correct interpretation of genetic evolutionary theory.




ABSTRACT
The aim of this thread is to present circumstantial (yet strong) evidence for the purpose of general discussion indicating that the currently accepted Darwinian theory that evolution is the direct result of environmental pressures acting on random changes in an organisms genome, is a seriously flawed and untenable one.

Using an example from my previous threads, I will be showing from a mathematical perspective, that the total number of nucleotide base pairs accumulated within the human genome during a time period of 3.8 billion years, is statistically extremely improbable if random mutations, coupled with environmental pressures, is the currently accepted primary mechanism for evolutionary change.

I will additionally, be examining the insulin molecule. Insulin is a crucial and significantly important molecule that came into existence quite early in the evolutionary timescale. Again, I will be using mathematics to attempt to show the statistically improbable odds against it's creation if based on nothing more than random interactions of nucleotide bases.

Finally, a process that is specifically tailored to energy metabolism within plants and animals will be examined. This process is the Citric Acid cycle (also known as the Krebs cycle). An attempt will be made to show that the inherent complexity and sophistication of this process is incompatible with an evolutionary development through trial and error type of mechanism.



DARWIN ... and ... ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES
The underlying basis to the current theory of evolution has remained essentially unchanged since the English naturalist Charles Darwin first postulated it in his book "On
the Origin of Species" published in 1859.
Darwin made the then bold leap and postulated a paradigm whereby


... all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry ... that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process labeled natural selection.


It should be stated that all of Darwins evidence for natural selection was derived purely from empirical observations as the genetic/molecular basis for life was completely unknown at that time. He had no understanding of the underlying mechanism allowing how small changes in a species could potentially accumulate over long periods of time to ultimately result in the emergence of a new descendant species.
However, as the science of genetics began to become established in the early part of the 20th century, and then later with the decryption of the DNA double helix by Watson and Crick, Darwins empirical observations could finally be explained as being the result of random mutations within the organisms DNA accumulating over long periods of time. These random mutations could just as likely be deleterious to the organism, as beneficial. If beneficial and conferring some slight advantage to the affected organism, the organism stood a slightly better chance of out-surviving it's competition, eventually breeding and passing on the newly acquired trait to its offspring. Eventually the newly acquired trait would become spread throughout the specie.

The above sounds great on paper as a "working" theory and seems to explain the emergence of new species but unfortunately research into exactly how and why the alleged mechanism works hasn't made much substantial progress since Darwin first published his theory.
The prime reason for this is money or more accurately, the lack of research grants, status and prestige. Researchers in government, industry as well as academia follow the research path where recognition, status and above all, grants are readily available and forthcoming.
Modern genetic research is nothing if not a money making multi-billion dollar industry. Consequently areas such as research into the how and why of genetic changes within species over the billions of years attracts very little money and therefore very little research.
If it can't be patented and mega bucks made as a result, then such research will simply languish or stagnate. It also doesn't help that the majority of the scientific community as well as the general populace have been led to believe that essentially Darwin's theory explains it all and that it's a done and dusted theory that needs no further explanation, let alone further investigation.
Evolution is so obviously caused by environmental stresses acting on random mutations within an organism ... simple, easy to understand, explains everything ... so no need to waste any more time on it. And so it has settled into the general consciousness as a complete theory - which is a highly unfortunate state of affairs. With Watson and Crick's monumental deciphering of the genetic code, the flood gates were opened up to genetic research and the vast majority of geneticists began to embrace with open arms the now wide open future for the genetic manipulation of human dna ... and in the process began to neglect dna's past.



TOO MANY MUTATIONS ... NOT ENOUGH TIME
So can this rock-solid pillar of science be shown to be far from complete as well as being significantly deficit in answering many key questions ?
Surprisingly enough the answer is yes, and it's not really that hard to do.

For most of my life, until very recently, I went along with the consensus that Darwin had essentially nailed evolution and that genetic science had additionally, supplied all the incontrovertible proof that was necessary.

But this all changed for me when I looked at the answers I was getting from a very simple mathematical exercise ... and alarm bells began to ring for me indicating that all was not well.

The trigger point was when I took the results published by the Human Genome Project showing their determination that the human genome contains approximately 3.1 billion nucleotides within the 23 chromosome pairs and then divided it into the estimated number of years that have elapsed since life in the form of the simplest cell began 3.8 billion years ago.



3.8 billion years / 3.1 billion nucleotides = 1.2 nucleotide additions per year.


There we have it in plain view.

To successfully insert a total of 3.1 billion nucleotides into the human genome within the time frame of 3.8 billion years, implies that ON AVERAGE, nature had to cause a mutation to occur approximately once per year ... each and every year ... for a total of 3.8 billion years !


But this figure of approximately one mutation per year must be considered to be a minimum value. The reason being that the majority of random mutations that occur within the genome are either neutral, in that they confer no advantage or disadvantage to the organism; or are harmful and ultimately result in the organisms death. Therefore the derived value of 1 random mutation per year ONLY refers only to those mutations that did not result in the organisms death and were passed on to succeeding generations.
If the many fatal random mutations are also to be taken into account, one must therefore assume an overall increase in natures rate of mutation generation to possibly a value of 2 or even more random mutations per year ... each and every year ... for 3.8 billion years.

Now I fully understand that there will be many responders claiming that my conclusion of an extremely rapid mutational rate having taken place continuously over the last 3.8 billion years is either completely incorrect and/or seriously flawed.
However I stand by the extremely simple mathematical result that leads to this logical contradiction to that of Darwins theory, namely that species change gradually and only over long periods of time.



In fact, I challenge anyone to firstly, dispute the fact that the human genome has gained 3.1 billion nucleotides over a period of 3.8 billion years; and secondly, to propose an alternate mechanism of nucleotide insertion into the genome that does NOT require such an extraordinarily high mutational rate to have been sustained continuously over billions of years, as I have proposed.




INSULIN
One of the primary roles of the chromosomes is to store the necessary information by which many different proteins can be manufactured by the cell.
This information is contained within specific areas along a chromosome called genes. These genes are essentially sequential locations of nucleotide base pairs.

In this section, an examination will be made of one of the simpler yet extremely important proteins called insulin. Insulin is central to regulating carbohydrate and fat metabolism in the body.

Insulin is a protein molecule composed of just 51 amino acids.



Because each amino acid is defined by just 3 sequential nucleotide bases (called a codon),



the entire insulin protein molecule is constructed from a length of chromosome comprising a total of
3 x 51 = 153
nucleotide bases.


Interestingly enough, porcine (pig) and human insulin are virtually identical, differing in only one amino acid out of the total of 51.
The logical conclusion here is that insulin originated in an organism that pre-dates both pigs and humans and therefore this organism must have been a common ancestor to both. Additionally, this also means that nature managed the astonishing feat of randomly generating a fully working insulin creating sequence quite early in terms of evolutionary time scales.

So here we have insulin being produced by a gene that is comprised of 153 sequential nucleotides. These 153 nucleotides MUST be added by nature to the chromosome in the correct sequence for insulin to be the resulting product.
Now the fundamental belief behind evolution is that random mutations are the primary driving force responsible for species acquiring new capabilities.
With this in mind, lets do a little simple maths and determine what are the odds that nature would be able to randomly select the correct 153 nucleotide bases and arrange them in the correct sequence to produce an insulin molecule.


Ok, nature has only 4 choices to make for each nucleotide, namely the selection of A, C, G or T.

So the odds of selecting the 1st nucleotide correctly will be 1 in 4 or 0.25.
Because the correct selection of a preceeding nucleotide has NO effect on the odds of selecting additional nucleotides, we can see that the odds of selecting the 2nd correct nucleotide is also 0.25, as is the odds of correctly selecting the 3rd nucleotide (0.25) ... and the odds of selecting the final nucleotide also is exactly 0.25.

Therefore probability theory tells us that selecting the correct sequence of 153 nucleotides is simply a matter of multiplying 153 lots of 0.25 (i.e. 0.25 x 0.25 x 0.25 x ... x 0.25 x 0.25 x 0.25).
Or put another way, the odds of nature assembling a sequential chain of 153 correct nucleotides and doing it randomly, is approximately
8 x 10^90 to one AGAINST !

To put it into perspective, the above says that picking 153 nucleotides randomly and creating a sequential chain with them, that there are an astronomical 8 x 10^90 different ways of doing it ... but only ONE OF THEM will be the correct sequence to successfully produce insulin !
So essentially nature has almost 8 x 10^90 chances of messing up the sequence and virtually NO chance, before the sun turns into a red giant, of getting it right ... and yet considering all the overwhelming odds stacked against it, no one seems prepared to or interested enough to say WTF ... instead the majority of people accept it on nothing more than blind faith alone that somehow nature still managed to pull of this incredible feat !

Finally, before moving on to the next area, let me summarize the salient points made so far.

Fact: We have 3.1 billion nucleotides in the human genome and we have 3.8 billion years of evolution since the 1st living cell was formed.
Fact: Nature had to generate random mutations at the astonishing minimum rate of approximately one mutation EVERY YEAR for EACH of those 3.8 billion years ... and if lethal mutations are also taken into account, then the mutation rate would be much higher than 1 per year.

Fact: The insulin producing gene consists of 153 nucleotides.
Fact: The odds are 8 x 10^90 AGAINST nature producing the SINGLE correct sequence purely by chance/random mutations.



CITRIC ACID CYCLE
So far there have been many references to dna, nucleotides and bases. Before continuing, it needs to be strongly stressed that the current understanding regarding the primary purpose of dna is to encode the necessary information that will be used to create an individual of a particular specie. This information is encoded in a very simple manner ... namely by the sequential adding of one of four bases (A,C,G and T) repetitively.
Three sequential bases then represent a particular amino acid, of which there are 20 different ones. When a length of dna is read, this length is read 3 sequential bases at a time and the corresponding amino acid produced. Then the next 3 base group is read .. then the next ... When every 3 base group in the length have been read, all the resultant amino acids are then combined to produce a specific protein.

And thats it essentially it in a nutshell. Yes, dna does have other functions but as described above, that is its primary function ... the encoding of the information to produce proteins.

Here is a pictorial representation of a section of dna showing the way in which bases are arranged sequentially along the dna's length:


and as shown earlier in this thread, here again is a pictorial representation of how 3 sequential bases are used to represent a specific amino acid:




Ok, on to the Citric Acid cycle, also known as the Krebs cycle.

The Citric Acid cycle is critical to the production of usable energy within a cellular environment and essential to cellular metabolism.



The citric acid cycle ... is a series of enzyme-catalysed chemical reactions, which is of central importance in all living cells that use oxygen as part of cellular respiration.

In aerobic organisms, the citric acid cycle is part of a metabolic pathway involved in the chemical conversion of carbohydrates, fats and proteins into carbon dioxide and water to generate a form of usable energy.


This energy producing cycle is an incredibly complex process with the end product being one of energy generation. This end product being entirely dependent on a multitude of separate sub-processes all working in perfect synchronization and harmony. It's the cellular equivalent of a sophisticated chemical industrial complex that has been finely tuned, where the removal, failure or malfunction of just a single one of any of the sub-processes would be catastrophic from the cell's (and ultimately the organisms) survival point of view.

The following is an illustration summarizing the process by which the cell generates energy:


As is immediately obvious, the process requires many steps to accomplish it's goal of energy production ... and each of these processes require the presence of a large number of different proteins.

Now this is where an immediate difficulty becomes apparent.

Each of the many proteins required by the Citric Acid cycle are produced just like the insulin protein discussed earlier, namely by sequences of A, C, G and T nucleotide bases stored within the chromosomes. But unlike the insulin protein that is located on a particular location on just one chromosome, the many proteins required by the Citric Acid cycle are stored in multiple locations and spread out over more than one chromosome.

So if the odds were astronomically stacked against the random assembly of 153 sequential nucleotide bases in just one chromosome location, how much more impossible must it be to randomly assemble the required number of sequential nucleotide base pairs for MULTIPLE proteins in MULTIPLE locations ?

And if that wasn't bad enough, for the Citric Acid cycle to function at all, every one of the required sequences would have had to come into existence at approximately the same time so that they could all come together to make the energy production process work.
Remember, this cycle is incredibly fine-tuned and so dependent on all the sub-processes being in existence, meshing together and functioning perfectly. If just ONE of the essential proteins was not in existence (because it had not been randomly created yet), then the Citric Acid cycle would NOT function ... therefore NO cellular energy production ... therefore NO organism !

So we are therefore left with the conundrum that to make the Citric acid cycle work, every part (protein) had to have been created through random mutations at the very same time which, as has been demonstrated, is statistically as close to zero as one can get without it actually being zero.
And like the insulin process, the Citric Acid cycle MUST have come into existence very early in the evolutionary time scale as it is critical to, and used by all organisms that metabolize oxygen for respiration ... therefore giving nature very little time for trial and error. Somehow, and in a very short space of time, nature successfully beat the almost insurmountable odds stacked against it.



CONCLUSION
As has been demonstrated in this thread, the belief in the process of a slow and random mutation mechanism acting over many millions of years as the primary means by which evolution proceeds, appears to be difficult to reconcile with observational evidence.
This difficulty has been highlighted by using nothing more complex than simple mathematics to demonstrate that to generate the existing human nucleotide sequences (and therefore proteins) within the accepted time frame of approximately 3.8 billion years, and in particular groups of critical nucleotide sequences (as in the Citric Acid cycle), indicates the potential to consider two alternative evolutionary possibilities.

1. The rejection of the Darwinian belief that the rate of random mutation being a slow and gradual process and the acceptance of the possibility that the rate of random mutation has been maintained at an incredibly high rate as a result of some unknown process or mechanism.

2. That evolution, and human evolution in particular, has been deliberately manipulated and enhanced by causes unknown.


And in parting, I once again repeat (with addition) the challenge I made earlier in this thread ...



I challenge anyone to firstly, dispute the fact that the human genome has gained 3.1 billion nucleotides over a period of 3.8 billion years; and secondly, to propose an alternate mechanism of nucleotide insertion into the genome that does NOT require such an extraordinarily high mutational rate to have been sustained continuously over billions of years, as I have proposed.

Addition: Provide a reasonable explanation for the creation of the Citric Acid cycle based on the prevailing concept of a slow rate of mutations accumulating in random locations of the organisms genome.




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Considering that selfish, self-replicating genetic elements in humans replicate themselves at a far greater rate than 3.1/3.8 per year, I'd say that they're a reasonable assumption.

Further, if you consider the protein structures, most protein-coding genes have only undergone synonymous mutations within the tetrapoda. Most of the differences we see in form are to do with changes to the regulatory regions of proteins... which means that not much has to change at all to produce a vast visible change.

When it comes to the genes for the citric acid cycle being distributed all over the genome, a single common ancestor is the easy explanation - bacterial genomes are short. Very short. As they got added to by replication of entire genes, and eventually broke down into multiple chromosomes, genes for a single process would have drifted apart, and eventually could have been on completely seperate chromosomes. By retaining a functional copy somewhere within the genome, however, this doesn't cause any problems for the animal, and so it continues to live, and breed, and endogenous retroviruses continue to insert themselves into the gene, and reverse-transcriptases continue to replicate meaningless code and even functional genes.

Considering how readily plants go polyploid, getting the genes to skyrocket isn't hard at all.

Good (well, long + informative) post, anyway, so S+F.

EDIT: By the way, re. Insulin, you are aware that the genetic code is degenerate? And as such, there's a lot of variation allowed within any sequence without it affecting the resultant protein.

Also, the idea would be that any pre-insulin animal ancestor would have been at the mercy of its diet, and the arisal of the insulin gene would simply have freed it from this. Insulin never "had to be", except when looking back.
edit on 15/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Who is to say that there isn't hundreds or thousands or more mutations going on at once. One mutation could possibly spawn a million mutations on down the genetic timeline. Your calculations are on averages. Life is not average and to prove your point I believe that you need evidence of only one mutation occuring at one time. While I believe that Darwin did not have all of the info he needed, it is a start and a theory that can be added to, to better understand life and the changes it goes through.
Well constructed thread



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Ah... its this thread again...

What seems to elude you is that for the first billion or so years, there was only microbial life = short life span = many generations over a single year. What is entirely plausible is that, lets say a microbe, with 1 billion "DNA bridges" will by a mutation error double this DNA. We can see it in our genome, most of the DNA has presumably no function and is the remnant of the past.


What's wrong with your attitude is that you approach random events with little understanding and you are trying to give this random events a mathematical sequence, which is not random.

I am mostly amazed how this topics, like the topic yesterday which claimed that our solar system is moving with the galaxy and overlooked a little fact that we do not even come from milky way, get flagged only because it looks smart....



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


A star and I flag for you, another nail in the coffin for Darwinian theory.

Excellent research.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Except that TheWill provided a quite succinct rebuttal. Mutation takes place quite rapidly, especially in 'lower-form' organisms. Then there's horizontal gene transfer.

I mean, I personally have about 180 mutations (and I'm guessing everyone else here on the board has about that many). Taken over my lifetime (let's say 90 years to be generous) that will be 2 mutations per year. And humans have relatively long lifespans. Now, if we take something like rats instead...well, anyone who understands rodent reproduction will realize how quickly the math is done.

1 mutation per year? Not all that hard.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckren
Ah... its this thread again...

What's wrong with your attitude is that you approach random events with little understanding and you are trying to give this random events a mathematical sequence, which is not random.


Seriously ? You give the distinct impression that you're completely unaware of the mathematical branches known as statistics and probability theory that attempts to assign values to random events ? How about checking out your closest casino which exist purely and simply because random events (spin of a wheel, toss of a die, pick of a card, toss of a coin, etc) have all been assigned mathematical probabilities.

Let me explain to make the concept clearer for you ... we'll use a simple die with 6 faces numbered 1 to 6.
The probability of the number 2 showing on the roll of a dice is 1 in 6 or approximately 0.16
Likewise, the probability of the number 5 showing instead is also 0.16.
In fact, the probability of ANY of the 6 numbers showing on a single roll of the die is 0.16

Now, whats the combined probability of say, the number 2 showing on the 1st roll, followed by the number 5 showing on the 2nd roll ?
Easy ... it's just the two probabilities multiplied together e.g. 0.16 x 0.16 = 0.0256.

And the probability of three consecutive showings of say 2, 5 and 6 is likewise 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 = 0.004.

So as can easily be seen, the more exact you are in your requirements of which numbers you want to show sequentially, the smaller the chances of it happening.
In other words, the greater the odds AGAINST it.

Instead of a die, we'll use insulin which is made up of 153 sequential nucleotide bases.
So we're now in a similar situation where instead of 6 choices as with a die for each "pick" or "roll", we now have only 4 choices to select from namely A, C, G and T. The odds of picking the correct one in this case is exactly 0.25.
But because we're forced to make 153 "picks" sequentially and get every one of them right, we do as we did with the die example and multiply 0.25 x 0.25 x 0.25 x ... x 0.25 a total of 153 times.

This gives us an answer that there is approximately 8 x 10^90 ways of selecting 153 sequential nucleotides but only 1 is the correct sequence that results in the insulin sequence.

Well, actually I have to modify that statement as there are actually a number of alternative sequences that would still produce a viable insulin sequence. If anyone is interested I'll explain further,

Irrespective though, and taking into account these additional sequences, we're still left with truly astronomical and mind bending odds AGAINST nature EVER successfully getting that 153 sequence correct if the only mechanism available is random trial and error.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Except that TheWill provided a quite succinct rebuttal. Mutation takes place quite rapidly, especially in 'lower-form' organisms. Then there's horizontal gene transfer.

I mean, I personally have about 180 mutations (and I'm guessing everyone else here on the board has about that many). Taken over my lifetime (let's say 90 years to be generous) that will be 2 mutations per year. And humans have relatively long lifespans. Now, if we take something like rats instead...well, anyone who understands rodent reproduction will realize how quickly the math is done.

1 mutation per year? Not all that hard.


Sure, I can accept that.
But you're talking about random unrelated mutations occurring throughout the entire genome of the organism .. a mutation here ... a mutation there.

What are the odds that firstly, your 180 "personal" mutations happen to be sequential on the same chromosome and secondly, those 180 mutations transcribe to a working protein, and thirdly, that your "personal" new protein is usable within your particular specie should you survive long enough to pass it on ?

Also, lets say that by some fluke, your 180 mutations do happen to be sequential and non-lethal to you, and that an eventual addition of say another 200 mutations to the end of your existing 180 would result in the creation of an essential and critical new protein (as insulin was) ... what are the odds that purely by random mutations alone, that those additional 200 mutations will occur, and in the correct sequence ?
1 in 10 ? 1 in 1000 ? 1 in 1,000,000 ?

In fact the odds are closer to 1 in 10^200 !!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Because you're looking it at from the wrong angle.

Any event in the future is improbable to the point of virtual impossibility.

However, that event having happened, it becomes absolute certainty from your current perspective - but it was not always so.

The mutations happening in the order that they did happen is extremely unlikely, but so is every other possible order that could have occurred.

Madness has previously used an example of cards in a playing deck. The odds, if you draw a card at random, are 1/52 of getting that particular card - but 1/1 of getting a card.

We have a card. It's not the only one we could have drawn, but it's the only one we did.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Because you're looking it at from the wrong angle.

Any event in the future is improbable to the point of virtual impossibility.

However, that event having happened, it becomes absolute certainty from your current perspective - but it was not always so.

The mutations happening in the order that they did happen is extremely unlikely, but so is every other possible order that could have occurred.

Madness has previously used an example of cards in a playing deck. The odds, if you draw a card at random, are 1/52 of getting that particular card - but 1/1 of getting a card.

We have a card. It's not the only one we could have drawn, but it's the only one we did.



I have to respectfully disagree with you.

If I understand you correctly (using your Madness example), you're saying that a future event of correctly selecting ALL 153 bases is extremely unlikely but because we obviously do have an insulin gene, that consequently we can look backwards and assign a probability of exactly 1 because it did happen ?

Thats not the way I see it however.

At some point in our evolutionary history, the insulin gene did not exist ... we can take that as a given.

Then at some later point in time, a random mutation occurred that inserted the very 1st correct base somewhere in one of the chromosomes.
At this stage there are a number of possibilities that could have happened.

1. Just the first correct base was inserted and no others ... for the time being.
This is the most likely possibility as it has the highest probability rating of 1 in 4 chances.

2. Two or more sequentially correct bases were inserted at the same time ... but not the entire complement of 153 bases.
This is less likely due to the effects of multiplying individual probabilities. The more correct bases randomly inserted, the less chance of it happening.

Probability of 2 sequentially correct bases = 0.25 x 0.25 = 0.0625 (or 0.25 ^ 2)
Probability of 3 sequentially correct bases = 0.25 x 0.25 x 0.25 = 0.0156 (or 0.25 ^ 3)

So as is clearly obvious, the more sequentially correct bases added in a single mutation, the less likelihood of it actually happening.

3. All 153 bases sequentially correct and added in a single mutation ... well, don't hold your breath !


Now the probability values don't change even if say the 1st 2 sequentially correct bases are added through random mutation, and then nothing further happens for 100's, 1000's or even millions of years after.
The combined odds of eventually accumulating, through purely random means, a total of 153 bases in the correct sequence still comes out at approximately 8 x 10^90 AGAINST.

Also bear in mind that the longer a partial correct sequence is in place without random mutations adding additional correct bases, the greater the chance of a random mutation hitting the partial correct sequence and corrupting it.
In other words, lets say that through random mutations that the 1st 80 sequences are correctly in place ... thats a great start as then we only need another 73 bases to be added in correct sequence and voila, we have an insulin gene.
However, the nature of mutations is their very unpredictability and randomness, and so there is just as much possibility of say, the 20th base out of those 80 being changed into a base that breaks the original 80 correct ones. In other words, the insulin sequence has gone backwards and is now only 20 correct bases long.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I dont know if it means anything, myself being a Christian Mystic Nondualist and a once "attacker of Evolution," ...

....however I now except it. You want to know why?

Because for one thing, we as human beings evolve in intelligence, physically, mentally, spiritually, and nature seems to do so in such an obvious manner the way there is adaptation to what-ever happens.

It seems any way to attack whats rather obvious is like grasping at straw.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
no no no you are using the word abstract all wrong. An abstract lists what you accomplished in this thread, not listing the goals of the thread. It is a summary of what you did. You dont use the word "will" in it. Get it right . God. If you are going to look professional and formal you just blew it.
edit on 15-1-2011 by fordrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


While you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, I will try one last time to demonstrate why I feel that it is not a particularly valid one.

1) You are still assuming that we HAD to have an insulin gene in the first place - we didn't. It was never required to arise. Life would have carried on, never knowing what it was missing, if it had never developed insulin in the first place. Humans would probably not have existed, but that's by the by.

2) You are making the assumption that the insulin gene arose from non-coding DNA. It is just as possible that it arose from coding DNA, a series of bases already coding for a protein which, by a few substitutions or perhaps just a single deletion/insertion, or even just a fortuitously placed crossover event, would have changed the amino acid sequence produced by the gene. Discovering insulin's ancestry would be difficult, because due to the degenerate nature of the genetic code*, much of the sequence could have changed greatly since the proteins diverged.


I hope this helps.

Edit to add: Having some free time (thank the theists that sundays are a day off), I went through insulin's 51 amino acid and calculated the total number of different code sequences that could give rise to the exact same amino acid sequence.

It's not 1, by the way, it's

1,633,892,686,212,710,000,000,000

See what a degenerate coding system can do to the stats?

[size=-3]
*there are 4x4x4=64 different three-base code sequences when A, T, C, & G bases are used in genetic code. There are only 21 or so different amino acids coded for, which means that many amino acids have multiple different codes. Further, within a protein, some amino acids can be interchanged without changing the protein structure. So long as the structure is maintained, the function is maintained, and there is little selection against such "synonymous", or silent, mutations.
edit on 16/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)
edit on 16/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Phew, this is going to be hard..


Originally posted by tauristercus
The underlying basis to the current theory of evolution has remained essentially unchanged since the English naturalist Charles Darwin first postulated it in his book "On
the Origin of Species" published in 1859.
Darwin made the then bold leap and postulated a paradigm whereby

Darwin wasn't the first person to postulate these things, he was merely the person who put the throughts into the minds of the wide audience. They actually go all the way back to the old greeks.


The above sounds great on paper as a "working" theory and seems to explain the emergence of new species but unfortunately research into exactly how and why the alleged mechanism works hasn't made much substantial progress since Darwin first published his theory.

The theory of evolution has actually come quite a way from the paradigme that Darwin set up. The basics still hold true, but the underlying mechanisms have been researched, and are still being unraveled to a very high degree.


The prime reason for this is money or more accurately, the lack of research grants, status and prestige. Researchers in government, industry as well as academia follow the research path where recognition, status and above all, grants are readily available and forthcoming.

Contrary to your beliefs, there are actually people who are interested in researching these things, for reason unrelated to money.


Consequently areas such as research into the how and why of genetic changes within species over the billions of years attracts very little money and therefore very little research.

Why are you making stuff up like this, just because it fits your theory?


If it can't be patented and mega bucks made as a result, then such research will simply languish or stagnate.

Ever heard about universities? I work in a genetics lab, and we never patent anything.


It also doesn't help that the majority of the scientific community as well as the general populace have been led to believe that essentially Darwin's theory explains it all and that it's a done and dusted theory that needs no further explanation, let alone further investigation.

I don't know how it works in your country, but here we are not taught Darwinism, but evolution. And evolution is very different compared to the paradigme that Darwin set up.


Evolution is so obviously caused by environmental stresses acting on random mutations within an organism ... simple, easy to understand, explains everything ... so no need to waste any more time on it.

Random mutations are not only caused by external factors. That is very important to understand.




*Snip*

To successfully insert a total of 3.1 billion nucleotides into the human genome within the time frame of 3.8 billion years, implies that ON AVERAGE, nature had to cause a mutation to occur approximately once per year ... each and every year ... for a total of 3.8 billion years !

You clearly don't get how things work. You seem to think that mutations are a random insertion of a nucleotide somewhere?

Without taking into account how many different ways mutations can be achieved, you should know that it is possible for entire chromosomes to be duplicated - Double the genome in the life span of a single celled organism, which can be down to a few minutes. So your way of looking at time is waaaaaaaaaaay off.


If the many fatal random mutations are also to be taken into account, one must therefore assume an overall increase in natures rate of mutation generation to possibly a value of 2 or even more random mutations per year ... each and every year ... for 3.8 billion years.

During mitosis, it is estimated that a mutation occours 1 in 10.000.000 nucleotides with efficient DNA polymerases, while we are down to 1 to 1.000.000.000 in higher mammals, that have proof reading polymerases. That is *roughly* 3 mutations per germ cell in higher mammals, which is quite low.

One of the largest bacterial genomes that have been studied, has around 12.000.000 base pairs. If we estimate a mutation rate of 1 to 1.000.000, which is probably way too low, but used for explaining this, we happen to have roughly 12 mutations per cell. Given that some bacteria can reproduce within 10 minutes, like E. coli under good conditions, I'll put the doubling time for such a large bacteria at 24 hours for the sake of discussion.
This gives us, in one year, a population of bacteria with 12*2^365 accumulated mutations, or 9 times 10^110 mutations, *excluding* any mutations that have happened during the lifetime of each organism due to external factors. And again, this is from the outcome of *one* organism.



In fact, I challenge anyone to firstly, dispute the fact that the human genome has gained 3.1 billion nucleotides over a period of 3.8 billion years; and secondly, to propose an alternate mechanism of nucleotide insertion into the genome that does NOT require such an extraordinarily high mutational rate to have been sustained continuously over billions of years, as I have proposed.

The above pretty much blows your pathetic attempt at debunking evolution by math into the ground.


Interestingly enough, porcine (pig) and human insulin are virtually identical, differing in only one amino acid out of the total of 51.
The logical conclusion here is that insulin originated in an organism that pre-dates both pigs and humans and therefore this organism must have been a common ancestor to both. Additionally, this also means that nature managed the astonishing feat of randomly generating a fully working insulin creating sequence quite early in terms of evolutionary time scales.

This also tells that you don't *get* evolution. Even if insulin magically sprang into existence, it would not have an effect. You would also need some way to regulate its expression, you would need a receptor it could target, and it would also need downstream effects from this receptor.

Almost all protein hormones have started out as an effector in a *very* basic pathway, and have then evolved to do different things.

Also, since insulin is only present in vertebrates, it probably first evolved around 550 million years ago. That is quite different from 3,8 billion years.


So here we have insulin being produced by a gene that is comprised of 153 sequential nucleotides. These 153 nucleotides MUST be added by nature to the chromosome in the correct sequence for insulin to be the resulting product.

The resulting product yes, but correct product with the same effect no.Try researching agonists, and silent mutations.


The Citric Acid cycle is critical to the production of usable energy within a cellular environment and essential to cellular metabolism.

*Snip*

The citric acid cycle ... is a series of enzyme-catalysed chemical reactions, which is of central importance in all living cells that use oxygen as part of cellular respiration.

In eucaryotes yes.


Each of the many proteins required by the Citric Acid cycle are produced just like the insulin protein discussed earlier, namely by sequences of A, C, G and T nucleotide bases stored within the chromosomes. But unlike the insulin protein that is located on a particular location on just one chromosome, the many proteins required by the Citric Acid cycle are stored in multiple locations and spread out over more than one chromosome.

So if the odds were astronomically stacked against the random assembly of 153 sequential nucleotide bases in just one chromosome location, how much more impossible must it be to randomly assemble the required number of sequential nucleotide base pairs for MULTIPLE proteins in MULTIPLE locations ?

Again, baseless argument, since nucleotides are not added randomly at random sites.

You really need to read up on how mutations occour. You will also realize that some mutations occur more often than others.


And if that wasn't bad enough, for the Citric Acid cycle to function at all, every one of the required sequences would have had to come into existence at approximately the same time so that they could all come together to make the energy production process work.

The citric cycle, as with all other processes, didn't just spring into existence. This is the basis of evolution, that processes are derived from other processes, and you are using the exact same argument as those that argue "If we a derived from apes, how come humans have not evolved from apes more than once?" - Ie. total lack of the basic concepts of evolution.


Remember, this cycle is incredibly fine-tuned and so dependent on all the sub-processes being in existence, meshing together and functioning perfectly. If just ONE of the essential proteins was not in existence (because it had not been randomly created yet), then the Citric Acid cycle would NOT function ... therefore NO cellular energy production ... therefore NO organism !

The citric cycle is by no means perfect. It actually uses energy under some conditions, so again your argument is pointless.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Except that TheWill provided a quite succinct rebuttal. Mutation takes place quite rapidly, especially in 'lower-form' organisms. Then there's horizontal gene transfer.

I mean, I personally have about 180 mutations (and I'm guessing everyone else here on the board has about that many). Taken over my lifetime (let's say 90 years to be generous) that will be 2 mutations per year. And humans have relatively long lifespans. Now, if we take something like rats instead...well, anyone who understands rodent reproduction will realize how quickly the math is done.

1 mutation per year? Not all that hard.


This...and of course the fact that we've expanded on Darwin's original theory over the past 150 years and the amount of backup scientists gathered in addition to what Darwin got is insurmountable. DNA backes it up, geographical dispersion backs it up, and on and on and on it goes...



Regarding the speed of mutations being "impossible" mathematically...tell that to the scientists who struggle with the frequent mutations of HIV. Why do you think no single medicine was able to cure it yet?
edit on 16-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
This is in essence a mutation (pun intended) of Hoyle's fallacy

Also see this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Simple retrospective probability calculation of ONE CONCRETE protein arising (which also disregarded natural selection) says nothing about the number of other possible functional proteins - or equally possible different evolutionary paths, which would satisfy the fitness requirement equally or even more.

edit on 17/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Even 1000 mutations a year which increase genome size constantly 1 bp at a time for the first 3 billions years or so of the journey to the human genome would be super likely, as back then our ancestors were single celled organisms that had generation times of some 30 minutes to an hour. Of course this is not the primary mechanism how genomes grow. By far the largest contributor is doubling of genome size over just one generation. You go from eg. 10 Mbp to 20 Mbp just like that. After this the biggest contributor is gene duplication that again just like that adds some 100-10000 bp to the genome. If you want to discuss the likelyhood of different functional proteins. Well first you'd need to understand that proteins come in families, and these families are results of gene duplication, and then natural selection acting upon the copies. These proteins share many domains (like a-helixes that span over plasma membranes). These sequences are conserved. However other sequences that effect folding etc. to tertiary structure vary, thus changing the properties of the protein (eg. affinity to substrate).

Oh and about the citric acid cycle. What you said is bs. You still get energy out of it even if you don't run a full cycle. It's all about redox reactions and generation of proton motive force that is used to drive ATPase to generate ATP from ADP+Pi. Some organisms even do reverse steps in citric acid cycle. It's quite cool stuff.

It's so annoying when amateurs with no understanding whatsoever of genetics or microbiology in general make these ridiculous claims like the one you presented.

Just to show how little you know. You said:



And like the insulin process, the Citric Acid cycle MUST have come into existence very early in the evolutionary time scale as it is critical to, and used by all organisms that metabolize oxygen for respiration ... therefore giving nature very little time for trial and error.

This is just plain wrong. Ogygenic (oxygen generating) photosynthesis came about only about 2 billion years after life had started on our planet. Before that there was no oxygen that could act as terminal acceptor of electrons, and thus no citric acid cycle as it's today.
edit on 17-1-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 

Also, there are in fact many different citric acid cycles, so it's not like there's only one magical formula that works. For future, might I suggest to OP that you read eg. Brock Biology of Microorganisms before you start any more biology related topics.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I'd love to see the OP come in and comment.
edit on 17/1/11 by Thain Esh Kelch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Well said.
I think the part about "random mutations" as an explanation is along the same lines as saying magic or god. That random mutation bit really gets underplayed if you take into account the odds of a mutation creating something living, odds of a mutation creating something that helps the organisim and the odds of the organisim passing on those benificial mutations.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join