The Origin and Evolution of Cells

a reply to: peter vlar

[Much like your oft repeated insistence that mutations are primarily harmful,

They are, primarily harmful. The body adapts, it doesn't mutate.

A world class athlete develops their strength and agility thru adaptation , not mutation.

a reply to: Barcs

We know 747s were made by humans.

They don't. Just like we don't know where life came from, originally.

a reply to: Barcs

. Keep invoking magic to explain what we don't fully understand... but again scientists already know most of that. DNA is still a work in progress, but there are very good ideas backed by experiment. But yeah, it's all magic because you don't understand it.

You can't explain origins either. Well, you do, but you call your magic 'science'.

Lol, by any other definition 747s are 'created' too.

Man creates things. Well, you say 'build'.

Yes, creationists do because they are ignorant.

I agree. So are electric mud puddle 'scientists'.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter vlar

[Much like your oft repeated insistence that mutations are primarily harmful,

They are, primarily harmful. The body adapts, it doesn't mutate.

No, they are not primarily harmful. They are overwhelmingly neutral. No matter how many takes you repeat a lie, it is still untrue.

A world class athlete develops their strength and agility thru adaptation , not mutation.

Are you making this up as you go? An athlete doesn’t get better as a result if adaptations. Adaptations come about through environmental factors selecting the mutations most beneficial to a particular eco niche. An athlete doesn’t adapt, they train and practice their asses off. Your insistence that it’s an adaptation reminds me of being a kid in the early 80’s when people still thought that African Americans were faster runners because they had an extra tendon in their leg that Caucasian’s don’t have. Neither paradigm have any basis in reality or science. It’s funny because the only sources I can find stating that most mutations are deleterious are YEC based.

Most amino acids are coded for by 2-4 codons, usually the difference is in the last base, which means a point mutation of the last base is unlikely to change the sequence (primary structure) of the polypeptide chain. Another possible explanation would be that even if a change in one amino acid occurs from a point mutation, most polypeptide chains are so large that the difference in their tertiary structures (overall folding of one polypeptide chain) is minimal. This is on top of the fact that a protein's active site is often only a part of the whole chain, meaning changing one amino acid that is away from the active site may make even less of a difference in function. Having said that, there are cases where a single mutation can have severe consequences, eg. sickle cell anaemia. The above all concerns substitution mutations, where a base has been changed to another. In the case of a deletion or an addition mutation, frame shifting occurs and the resultant protein would very likely be completely dysfunctional.

Examples of beneficial mutations- www.gate.net...

Beneficial mutations in HSS- www.gate.net...

As I tried to illustrate in my previous reply to you, whether a certain mutation is beneficial, neutral or deleterious entirely depends on the local environment/ ecological niche. Please refer to my previous reply illustrating the differences between red fox, Arctic Fox and fennec Fox.

Mutations are primarily neutral. Not deleterious. Not beneficial.

Or can you provide a citation supporting your contentions?

a reply to: peter vlar

No, they are not primarily harmful. They are overwhelmingly neutral. No matter how many takes you repeat a lie, it is still untrue.

The cell doesn not replicate unless it can copy to the program, it favors genetic sameness, not mutation.

Mutations sneak by, giving rise to cancers. That is the harmful.

But anyway, I can be open to all the genetic improvements ongoing concurrently. Show me one man-bear-pig. Just one.

I'll wait.

originally posted by: intrptr
They are, primarily harmful. The body adapts, it doesn't mutate.

A world class athlete develops their strength and agility thru adaptation , not mutation.

Complete lie. Peter broke down this point very nicely.

They don't. Just like we don't know where life came from, originally.

You are really struggling with this. Just because they don't know, doesn't mean we don't. Your example is terrible and proves that ignorance leads to irrationality.

You can't explain origins either. Well, you do, but you call your magic 'science'.

I never said I could explain every detail about origins. I clearly said I don't have all the answers. Not having an answer doesn't make YOUR explanation more likely. Your explanation is a complete guess that requires denial of the scientific method and invoking magic. You just appeal to ignorance.

There is nothing magical about science.

www.talkorigins.org...

Let me know when you can argue against the hard evidence. We all know you will ignore it and pretend it was never posted.

I agree. So are electric mud puddle 'scientists'.

Another great straw man. You are on fire with the fallacies today.

The cell doesn not replicate unless it can copy to the program, it favors genetic sameness, not mutation.

This isn't even comprehensible. Mutations are not favored, there just happens to be a lot of transcription errors during replication. This is proven fact.

Mutations sneak by, giving rise to cancers. That is the harmful.

The majority of mutations are still neutral by a long shot. You are being VERY dishonest here.

But anyway, I can be open to all the genetic improvements ongoing concurrently. Show me one man-bear-pig. Just one.

Oh, so you are just trolling then. Good to know because most people are not THAT willfully ignorant.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter vlar

No, they are not primarily harmful. They are overwhelmingly neutral. No matter how many takes you repeat a lie, it is still untrue.

The cell doesn not replicate unless it can copy to the program, it favors genetic sameness, not mutation.

No matter how many times you insist that this is the case, it isn't supported by biology or genetics in any way. Transcription and translation errors occur nearly every time a cell divides. It's why you aren't a clone of either of your parents and when they got together to produce you, it resulted in your unique genetic code that is some of moms, some of dads and some new unique sequences based on these in uterine transcription errors as your fetus gestated.

Please refer to the link at the bottom of this post for examples of the frequency of transcription/translation errors in E. Coli. E. Coli is used because of how quickly they reproduce making it much easier to track mutation rates and establish molecular clocks.

Mutations sneak by, giving rise to cancers. That is the harmful.

Nobody is disputing that cancer is a deleterious mutation, only that they are the overwhelming minority of mutations. For the 3rd time now, the vast majority of mutations are neither deleterious nor beneficial. They are neutral. Sometimes these neutral traits are passed on to the population and become either beneficial or deleterious if the population moves into a different ecological niche.

One example is the appearance of blue eyes. It's neither beneficial nor deleterious to the population in terms of the organisms fitness and ability to survive. It does however make the individual stand out more when the majority of the local population still has brown eyes. It improves the individuals chances of passing it's genes on to not her generation. At the most basic level, evolution is all about surviving long enough to pass your genetic code on to offspring.

But anyway, I can be open to all the genetic improvements ongoing concurrently. Show me one man-bear-pig. Just one.

I'll wait.

Oh cute... A strawman. If you understood how evolution as a biological mechanism worked, you would know that the sudden appearance of your magical manbearpig would actually invalidate the MES.

It's cool though if you prefer not to look at all of the facts and enjoy the bliss of willful ignorance but your statements and assumptions have no basis in reality or science.


book.bionumbers.org...

book.bionumbers.org...

Religion and science both presume a lot when it comes to origins. So far nobody has addressed this direct question, the topic of the thread...

intrptr out

a reply to: peter vlar

No matter how many times you insist that this is the case, it isn't supported by biology or genetics in any way.

Yes it is supported. Cancer is degenerative, progressive, fools the host into thinking its part of the normal genome. The immune system doesn't attack it. Theres a plethora of different forms of cancer, millions of people afflicted by it. The origins are mutation, where are all the positive millions of improvements, evolving new helpful features and characteristics?

Spiders have eight eyes, why don't we?

How about wolves UV vision or infrared pits like snakes?

If we had four legs we would be faster, stronger, where are the four legged humans winning the olympics?

You guys are blind.

Meh, tired of this, intrptr out.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter vlar

No matter how many times you insist that this is the case, it isn't supported by biology or genetics in any way.

Yes it is supported. Cancer is degenerative, progressive, fools the host into thinking its part of the normal genome. The immune system doesn't attack it. Theres a plethora of different forms of cancer, millions of people afflicted by it.

Gotcha... You're totally trolling and making this up on the fly. Got it.

For anyone reading this that may want to agree with your lack of understanding of biology in general and evolution in particular, just because cancers are a result of transcription/ translation errors does not mean that they are the most common mutations or that harmful mutations in general, are the most common mutations.

I'll reiterate this a 4th time for posterity... The overwhelming majority of mutations are NEUTRAL. Deleterious mutations are NOT the most common.

The origins are mutation, where are all the positive millions of improvements, evolving new helpful features and characteristics?

Bipedalism along with less hair and more sweat glands (so far 3 beneficial mutations in our genus if you're keeping score) allowed early members of our genus to become apex predators because they could chase after large game for prolonged periods of time while their prey might outrun them initially, that prey tired more quickly and easily than the humans hunting them.

Speaking of humans hunting for their food...
All modern humans have a gene coded for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI. Basically, what it does I said in transportation of cholesterol through the bloodstream. In Italy, there is a group of people who have a novel mutation on this gene called Apolipoprotein AI-Milano or APO-aim for short. This mutation allows for the protein to remove even more cholesterol from cells as well as break down arterial plaque. In shirt, it means they can eat a diet high in fat and have less of a chance of dealing with arteriosclerosis and heart disease. Did I mention that it also works as an antioxidant and prevents inflammation that results from arteriosclerosis ?

Another really beneficial mutation in humans is increased gone density. The gene in question is called LRP5 (low density lipoprotein receptor related 5). Harmful mutations to this gene lead to osteoporosis but another mutation on this gene a actually amplifies LRP5 giving the individual even more bone density than the average person. The mutation was discovered in the Mid West when an individual walked away from a near fatal car crash with no broken bones.

Everyone is familiar with sickle cell right? 1 parent has the gene and your immune to malaria. Both parents carry the gene and you end up with sickle cell anemia. This isn't what I'm going to reference though. Italian researchers found a new gene associated with hemoglobin called HbC. One parent has the gene and the child has only a 71% chance of getting Malaria. Both parent? Only a 7% chance of getting malaria. No negative effects as there are in sickle cell anemia.

Tetra chromatic Vision (color vision). Most mammals have poor or no color vision because most only have 2 types of cones in their eyes. Humans, like other primates, have 3 types of cones. Being able to find colorful berries and plants and distinguishing between markings on other predators or prey seems to be pretty beneficial wouldn't you think?

Spiders have eight eyes, why don't we?

Probably because we aren't spiders. If you need someone to explain why a mammal doesn't share traits with an arachnid then there isn't much hope for the future.

How about wolves UV vision or infrared pits like snakes?

Because we have a better adaptation, our large brains. We can manufacture items to see into non visible spectrums. And do you have a citation for wolves seeing in UV? Because last I knew, only Reindeer could see in huge UV spectrum.

If we had four legs we would be faster, stronger, where are the four legged humans winning the olympics?

Because your front paws are now hands.

You guys are blind.

And you're willfully ignorant.

Meh, tired of this, intrptr out.

It must be exhausting making the same statements over and over again without an iota of supporting data or citations and then having a bunch of blind people show you where the door is.


Just for review, Mutations are categorized into three types according to their phenotypes:

Gain of Function: (i) ectopic (different location or time of transcription and translation or protein localization), (ii) neomorphic (totally new function) or (iii) hypermorphic (hyperactive protein translation or activity)
Loss of function: (i) null (no protein produced) or (ii) hypomorphic (insufficient number of proteins)
Neutral. No change in phenotype
You can already see that 4 out of 5 of these subtypes are non-beneficial.

Single base pair insertions or deletions into our genome cause significant damage to proteins due to the "frameshift" mutation in which the triplet codons no longer make sense and code for incorrect amino acids after the point of mutation.

It is also rather important to note that a novel beneficial phenotype is often a summation of smaller mutations over very very long periods of time - longer than ~10 generations.

I'm still thinking that there really was no "first cell," and that cells as we know them today exist because complete cells in the present or future can sometimes slip through a micro-wormhole (or "sponge hole" in spacetime) into what we call the past.

a reply to: intrptr

You can of course back this up right? Not just say it is so, and expect us to agree.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: intrptr

You can of course back this up right? Not just say it is so, and expect us to agree.

Yes, I evolved wings and flew out of this fairy tale thread....

a reply to: intrptr

Yes, god/s and creation are a fairy tale.

a reply to: intrptr

You should be tired of this because your arguments are horrible. You just keep making stuff up. Where is your explanation to the evidence posted? Your ignorance of how evolution works isn't a valid argument.

Barcs out.

a reply to: intrptr

Yep, you don't understand how Evolution works. You seem to think that we can adapt our genome naturally and develop new traits at anytime in our lives.

Well, cells are a lot like thick bubbles. I suppose that you get a fairly thick bubble made of something that lets "good" water and nutrients into it, and lets the "bad" stuff out. Somehow it captures some amino acids in it along with some other stuff making up the cytoplasm. Somehow the amino acids soak into the cell membrane and help solidify it. Somehow it reaches a point where it has absorbed all of the nutrients it can, and swells to capacity. Because the cell membrane is fairly tough, rather than burst apart it "pulls in" on itself, splitting the nucleus and sealing itself off as two cells.

That's the Underpants Gnome theory:
1. Stuff gets trapped in a tough bubble.
2. ????
3. Two cells.