A blow to evolution - Gene Regulation

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?

www.plosgenetics.org... and references therein. If you really want to know read also the relevant chapters from Alberts Molecular Biology of the Cell. After that you wouldn't need to post misinformation like the following:


Originally posted by neoholographic
Gene regulation and expression needs proteins in order to regulate the expression of genes.

As not all gene regulation relies on proteins..

Why not google things before posting? Also, there's no such thing as "the lac operon". There are multiple different kinds of lac operons in different bacteria..
edit on 24-2-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
Here's some questions.

How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?

Why does the repressor attach itself to the operator and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why does the repressor attach to the operator when lactose isn't present and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why do you have promoter, operator then genes and how did this sequence evolve?

What stops the RNA Polymerase when the repressor is attached to the operator? Why can't it express the lac genes and how did this mechanism evolve?

How did Repressors, Enhancers and Activators evolve and how did the mechanics evolve for there role in gene regulation?

Which evolved first the enhancers, activators, promoter region or DNA coding sequence and how did the mechanics evolve?

How did the bending protein evolve and how did the mechanics evolve where the bending protein folds the DNA strand to the spot near the promoter which activates gene expression?

Why does the activators attach themselves to the enhancers and how did the mechanics evolve?

Which evolved first gene regulation or gene expression? How did these things evolve and how did the mechanics evolve?

Gene regulation and expression needs proteins in order to regulate the expression of genes. Which evolved first, how did it evolve and how did the mechanics evolve? Did the expression come before the regulation or did they both just magically appear as a system that works beautifully together?


Aah so that's where God has been hiding, this ever receding ball of scientific ignorance?

Good to know, some folk have been looking for him but to no avail....



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Is this the best you can do? You post an article that actually supports what I'm saying? The article says.


Adaptation to novel environments is often associated with changes in gene regulation. Nevertheless, few studies have been able both to identify the genetic basis of changes in regulation and to demonstrate why these changes are beneficial.


First, your article says there's few studies that even touch these areas. This is because they can't and I will explain why in a minute.

Secondly, the whole article are talks about CHANGES IN REGULATION. The regulation and expression mechanics are already in place.

The next line explains the focus of this study and why it has nothing to do with anything I talked about.


To this end, we have focused on understanding both how and why the lactose utilization network has evolved in replicate populations of Escherichia coli.


Again, the lactose utilization network is already in place and they wanted to understand why and how it evolved in other populations, not how the mechanics of the network evolved.

Again, how did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve? Whhat evolved first the promoter region, operator region or the region that codes for lac proteins? How did this sequence evolve? In what successive steps did this evolve? Did the repressor evolve before the operator region? How did the mechanics evolve?

The mechanics of a system based on code has to be put in place by intelligence. It's simply ignorant to me that people will even suggest that the mechanics of a system evolved naturally.

When I'm looking at the blinds on my window, I can see the mechanics of the system. If I pull the string one way the blinds open up, when I pull them the other way the blinds close. These mechanics were put in place by intelligence.

Here's a video about the lac operon.



The mechanics of the system didn't evolve, they were instructed by intelligence.

Also, if you're so worried about me saying the lac operon, you need to write the Author of the article you posted. Here's what he said:


Here we focus on the regulation of a group of well-studied genes, the lac operon, that control the utilization of lactose



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
If we were designed by a creator I'd still like to know who designed the creator. If it's not possible for amazingly complex things to naturally evolve over time then we must conclude that something else created the creator. Saying that complex things must always be designed and can't arise naturally is a paradox... because then you are forced to say the creator couldn't have possibly arisen naturally. At the end of the day, the ONLY possible conclusion that one may reach is that given enough time even the most absurdly unlikely events will occur. It doesn't matter how unlikely those events are, they will eventually occur. And when extremely rare things like sentient life pops up they think "man there's no way we got here naturally".
edit on 23/2/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


You question is one of logic. Logic is a human tool we use to solve problems try and understand the universe around us. Has it occured to you that the universe may well be bigger than the tool we use to define it. That some things cannot be answered within the remit of logic.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





The mechanics of a system based on code has to be put in place by intelligence. It's simply ignorant to me that people will even suggest that the mechanics of a system evolved naturally.


Irreducible complexity "god of the gaps" is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. Jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it works.
There is plenty of evidence that things do happen naturally. Whenever we find out the causes of anything, it turns out to have been caused by some real thing and not a ghost, a god, or magic pixie dust.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Second Time of Asking

OP, why do you think non-coding DNA is blind to natural selection?

You do realise, I hope, that your argument stands or falls on your ability to answer that question...



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Second Time of Asking

OP, why do you think non-coding DNA is blind to natural selection?

You do realise, I hope, that your argument stands or falls on your ability to answer that question...


No it doesn't. Your question can be easily answered. It's just you trying to add weight to your question that isn't there. It's a high school question but I will answer it when you make an attempt to answer my questions.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Again, just hyperbole. You said:


Whenever we find out the causes of anything, it turns out to have been caused by some real thing and not a ghost, a god, or magic pixie dust.


This has nothing to do with my post. Let's stick to the discussion.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Wth? "i don't know, so it must be an intelligent creator" please evolve your mind.


Anyway, to see how the first protein came into be to make the whole operon system, we would slightly need to jump into abiogenesis, remember, evolution is only after everything is established, evolution does not talk about origin of life.

Now, in the Albigensian sense, we would have to assume a protein formed first, then a regulation system from proteins was made. Since pretty much all the mechanism and regulators as well as repressor s are made from proteins.

In a way, you can say Gene regulation is actually a pro to the evolution. A lac operon was needed fo the bacteria to survive..

My assumption(since this is abiogenisis): First it was probably a proteins that was present in the cell, which became mechanism to due to environmental stimuli, which, thru trial and error, went thru multiple energy source, and established Lactose as a possible use of energy when others were not around.

This mechanism is latent until a need for such operation and regulation to occur. Sort of like Glycogen, Sugar, Muscle, Fat in humans
!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


You said,


Wth? "i don't know, so it must be an intelligent creator" please evolve your mind.


I never said this. I do know that a natural interpretation of evolution is impossible and can't account for this. You're the one making the claim that this is how it occurred.

Where's the scientific evidence not assumptions and hyperbole.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Originally posted by Astyanax
OP, why do you think non-coding DNA is blind to natural selection?


Originally posted by neoholographic
Your question can be easily answered. It's a high school question but I will answer it when you make an attempt to answer my questions.

I don't remember you asking me any questions. Since you refuse to answer my one, simple question, we may take it for granted that you have no answer.

Thread fail.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Well, you didn't read my OP.

If it makes you feel better to add thread fail at the end of your post then so be it lol.

It's not my job to explain to you how natural selection can do these things. You're the one that accepts this nonsense. So it's up to you to show how natural selection can put these mechanics in place. Give me the scientific paper so I can look over it. Here's my questions again since you didn't read the OP.


How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?

Why does the repressor attach itself to the operator and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why does the repressor attach to the operator when lactose isn't present and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why do you have promoter, operator then genes and how did this sequence evolve?

What stops the RNA Polymerase when the repressor is attached to the operator? Why can't it express the lac genes and how did this mechanism evolve?

How did Repressors, Enhancers and Activators evolve and how did the mechanics evolve for there role in gene regulation?

Which evolved first the enhancers, activators, promoter region or DNA coding sequence and how did the mechanics evolve?

How did the bending protein evolve and how did the mechanics evolve where the bending protein folds the DNA strand to the spot near the promoter which activates gene expression?

Why does the activators attach themselves to the enhancers and how did the mechanics evolve?

Which evolved first gene regulation or gene expression? How did these things evolve and how did the mechanics evolve?

Gene regulation and expression needs proteins in order to regulate the expression of genes. Which evolved first, how did it evolve and how did the mechanics evolve? Did the expression come before the regulation or did they both just magically appear as a system that works beautifully together?


A natural interpretaion of evolution has NEVER AND WILL NEVER be able to explain these things. If you have scientific studies that refute this and show something different, please post them.
edit on 25-2-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic

Originally posted by Astyanax
Second Time of Asking

OP, why do you think non-coding DNA is blind to natural selection?

You do realise, I hope, that your argument stands or falls on your ability to answer that question...


No it doesn't. Your question can be easily answered. It's just you trying to add weight to your question that isn't there. It's a high school question but I will answer it when you make an attempt to answer my questions.


Really? "The mechanics of a system based on code has to be put in place by intelligence". This intelligence you speak of it's not natural a ghost, a god, or magic pixie dust? Could you please tell me what your talking about.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 

Oh, those questions.

Do you expect answers to detailed problems in molecular biology from non-experts on a popular web forum?

Presumably you chose them because you know biology currently has no answer to them. That does not mean there are no answers, or that the answer must be Sky Big Man Magic.

You argument for creationism boils down to: we don't know how something works, therefore it must be magic. The first hypothesis of loincloth-wearing savages everywhere. Some 'blow to evolution'!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
If god created everything, then obviously he created evolution.

All arguments against evolution are nothing of the sort.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I LOVE this reply of yours! LOL!

I have done a quick read of the quoted supposed "Proofs Against Evolution" and what makes it all the funnier to me is this person does not even realize that what they are posting for supposed proof only INCREASES the evidence for Evolution...whci by the way is a provable FACT.

The reason it is now a FACT is that the Mapped Human Genome was compared with the thousands of other mapped Species Genomes and all were found to contain an ancient Viral Encoding within their DNA.

Now this Viral Encoding of DNA is specific to all species on Earth that have had their Genomes mapped and every single one including Humans has this encoding.

The ONLY possible way this could happen is that All Life on Earth EVOLVED from a Single Celled Organism that had been infected by a Virus. Thus the Virus encoded it's DNA upon the original lifeform and evolved into all species of Life upon Earth.

This is PROOF POSITIVE and cannot be refuted.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If god created everything, then obviously he created evolution.

All arguments against evolution are nothing of the sort.


There are no conflicts over a persons belief in a GOD and EVOLUTION. BOTH can exist simultaniously within a persons belief system.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
There are no conflicts over a persons belief in a GOD and EVOLUTION. BOTH can exist simultaniously within a persons belief system.

Split Infinity


I know, that is why I said, "If god created everything, then obviously he created evolution".

In other words just because evolution is true it doesn't mean creation isn't.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


If...and that is a BIG IF...a GOD does exist then the evidence points to such a GOD using Evolution....NOT spontanious Creation.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Your post is a big contradiction. You first said:


Oh, those questions.

Do you expect answers to detailed problems in molecular biology from non-experts on a popular web forum?


So there's answers but there to detailed for idiots on a popular web forum to post. This is just silly. You see very detailed and well thought out posts on ATS all of the time. You then said:


Presumably you chose them because you know biology currently has no answer to them.


You then say there isn't any answer???

First the answers are to detailed to post and then there isn't any answers to these questions.

Let me end your dilemma. There isn't any answers because a natural interpretation of evolution belongs in Middle Earth with the Hobbits not as a serious scientific theory.





top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join