A blow to evolution - Gene Regulation

Originally posted by edmc^2
OK I understand what you're saying but it doesn't answer my first question - which is: did this virus of yours came first then followed by single celled organism?

Virus of mine? You mean this? It probably first was a single celled organism.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Unless I misunderstood you in that the single celled organism came first then followed by virus of some sort and infected the cell?

To what particular single celled organism are you referring to? The ancestor of the virus mentioned above?

Originally posted by edmc^2
If so does this mean then the single celled organism was dependent on the existence of the virus in order to regulate its genes - thereby promote evolution?

Well if we're discussing the cellular ancestor of the above mentioned virus, then I would say that there was no distinction. It slowly became an obligate parasite and even lost its cellular membrane.

Originally posted by edmc^2
SO without the virus then evolution would not occur. Unless of course if by blind chance the single celled organism evolved by itself without the aid of the virus.

This is somewhat unrelated but I think around the time of something like the intro of this article describes, there was extensive horizontal gene transfer mediated by viruses and other factors. Even today, the majority of genetic diversity exists in viral genomes and horizontal gene transfer is frequent. Also, I don't see by what logic the phenomenon we call evolution is dependent on viruses.

Originally posted by edmc^2
As for Organism:

As I understand it, if it has structure or a body to regulate itself then it's an organism.

Scientifically put..

So are viruses organisms?

By the way..

Originally posted by edmc^2

All organisms living on Earth are divided into the eukaryotes and prokaryotes based on the presence or absence of true nuclei in their cells. The prokaryotes represent two separate domains, the Bacteria and Archaea. Eukaryotic organisms, with a membrane-bounded cell nucleus, also contain organelles, namely mitochondria and (in plants) plastids, generally considered to be derived from endosymbiotic bacteria.[1] Fungi, animals and plants are examples of species that are eukaryotes.

Some recent articles question the 3 domains of life paradigm and instead argue for 2 domains in which Eukaryotes are in fact Archaea. The suggestion is huge and contradicts that textbook picture of the phylogeny of the 3 domains of life. Still, I don't think it's well-known/widely accepted just yet. Don't you love science? Self-correcting and not afraid to admit if it's wrong..

reply to post by neoholographic


It's more than obvious that these expressed genes did not evolve.

I have had so many threads on here where I have made it more than obvious that evolution isn't even possible. It's just somone that had connected a bunch of dots that don't belong together, but backed it up with theory so people buy it.

My favorite is how any and all changes of genes are considered to be evolution. So I pose the question about ADHD. It appears to be taking on the role of deleting and multiplying certain genes, or at least they find these changes in most people that have ADHD.

It's obvious that NOT ALL changes are evolution. A person smoking ciggeretts and bringing lead into their system causing ADHD is not evoluton. But they will try to convince you otherwise.

IMO observed changes is certain species is nothing more than that species adapting, and has nothing to do with aleged evolution. There is no proof that any or all changes are all part of a bigger picture known as evolution, except in the authors eyes. There is no proof that a species can change into another species, its only theorized, yet frequently accepted.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It's more than obvious that these expressed genes did not evolve.

What makes it so obvious? Your general disbelief in evolution, or is there some specific biochemical obstacle? If the answer is the first, kindly do not trouble yourself to reply, but if it is the second, please share the information with us.

You are right when you say that not all changes of form or function are evolutionary. Only heritable change is involved in evolution by natural selection. However, epigenetic processes are also exposed to natural selection, so changes in non-coding DNA can be heritable.

Very good OP, fits right in with what I study. I've read almost all of your material already and even watched that flick. I like seeing someone making others aware of things though, even I got a good review and found something I missed. I know quite a bit about this but still have a hard time explaining it to others. I usually translate it into knowledge that can easily be applied but explaining gets complicated, I would rather have someone else make threads.

I'm going to try to explain something.

Changing chemistry of the food causes changes in the Junk DNA coding. Rarely does this permanently occur in the same individual, it usually takes a generation to form a change. Gene expression variants seem to be regulated and temporary changes can happen in a generation. Expression can happen during times of growth changes in individuals between youth/ teen and teen/adult though. None of the changes they are doing to our foods take this into consideration, no testing is done that spans a generation. Even simple foods given to a person can temporarily alter the expression. This expression is tied to our immune system. If a copper ion is replaced by a Selenium ion it initiates a change. I am using these two ions as examples but am not sure if these two are right. This happening in large amounts could create another change that causes a craving for strawberries, we eat the strawberries and the balance of minerals is obtained. The gene expression goes back to normal, This is just one possible process, there are millions of them. When this gets out of wack we slowly get sick and look older because it can cost the gene some telemeres.

We are changing our foods too fast, not only the chemicals added to the foods, the foods themselves have chemistry. This massive amount of changes can cause sterility and changes that can be seen in children after they are born in both physical and mental functioning. This change needs to be done slow, we cannot introduce hundreds of new foods and chemistry into the diet in a generation. This includes methods of preparation also. This has gotten insane and people will loose more and more of the rationality we took so long to develop. Everyone will be on antidepressants or meds of some kind.......It is already happening......Listen to the people who say you can't eat that or it doesn't taste right. Don't eat something just to fit in, one person can eat what another can't. It does not make one person inferior or another superior.

They shot a sprig of mistletoe to boastful Baldr and Baldr ate the berries and died, a mistletoe can not make an arrow. Even the gods can get poisoned.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

What makes it so obvious?

Haven't you been paying attention? Blue laminate and target food make it obvious!

reply to post by Astyanax


There seems to be less chance than probability.

reply to post by rickymouse


What a crock, are you trying to say there isn't a generation between us and apes?

reply to post by Astyanax

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by itsthetooth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes it so obvious?

Haven't you been paying attention? Blue laminate and target food make it obvious!

Yes neither of which has anyone successfully been able to prove wrong.

reply to post by itsthetooth


If somehow the Junk DNA got really messed up, someone could get apelike features and mentality. Think about this for a while and look at some of the people you know. Head shapes are different between brothers sometimes, one will look completely different than the other often. This falls under gene expression, the thing that makes us look different from each other. It also makes us need different foods. The FDA does not restrict many foods that many say are bad for us. If they did they would have to make some healthy foods that others need restricted also. I see that everyone is different and that some mandatory food chemistry used in preserving freshness is causing a lot of problems for people. I see irrationality increasing in this society not decreasing as you would suspect a more educated society to have.

reply to post by itsthetooth


I think someone was experimenting on me many years agowww.sciencedaily.com...

reply to post by itsthetooth

Blue Laminate:

You've been completely unable to produce any evidence to support your claims.

Target Food:

You refuse to enter into a structured debate with colin42 to support your claims.

"What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Originally posted by mideast
Evolution is a lie.

It is said that these creatures evolve themselves.

But I haven't seen any creature evolving itself telling it self "I must grow this way, then it grow"

My skin is tanned when it is exposed to sunlight.

I don't tell it "get tanned"

Some rule is imposed on it and it gets tanned.

Western materialists invented Evolution to ignore god.

I'm Interested enough by what you say as to ask you tell me a bit more about your self
nothing that would give away your identity or anything.

Never have i heard someone describe their thoughts on how evolution behaves in a way
that they might contemplate evolution working so fast as to be visible to the human eye.

My understanding of evolution is something that cells do over millions and millions of years.
Where did you learn your understanding of evolution, was it in church or at home or maybe just the way you understand it.
Would love to know more about you.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There seems to be less chance than probability.

Only 'seems'? And yet you say

It's more than obvious that these expressed genes did not evolve.

More than obvious because the chances seem improbable? Something is improbable, therefore it's obviously impossible? Creationist logic at its finest.

Class dismissed. You can go out and play now.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There is no proof that a species can change into another species, its only theorized, yet frequently accepted.

You stated that one organism changes into another organism. You did it at the following post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviously his diet changes when he changes species.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Yes neither of which has anyone successfully been able to prove wrong.

Only in thousands of posts. Here is an hilarious example.

Ask tooth about their folly and they state:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

All units of a species eat the same food

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviously only the females drink blood to help with protien.
In this case they have to be seperated as they do not share the blood diet.

So tooth wants to separate male and female mosquitoes into separate species since they do not share the same diet.

Tooth also claims that cats and rabbits have offspring called cabbits!

Never proved wrong?

reply to post by rigel4


I am an Iranian Muslim who has been to university.

I was saying that there are rules and ways for changing and the creature is not choosing or thinking about the change.

If you look at this differences , you could see that all those species have evolved in one major way.

I mean , if we suppose that mouses are evolved into bats , then there should million kinds of bats with million types of major evolution. For example , each one should have a unique and very different kind of wing.Maybe one bat thinks that the wings of eagle are more useful and the other one is thinking about hummingbird's wings.

But it is not happening , we see species with one united shape (little differences).

Originally posted by mideast
I mean , if we suppose that mouses are evolved into bats , then there should million kinds of bats with million types of major evolution.

Why would we suppose that? Molecular phylogenetics reveal that bats are more closely related to e.g. dolphins than to mice. Also, bats represent like 20-25% of all classified mammals.

Originally posted by mideast
For example , each one should have a unique and very different kind of wing.Maybe one bat thinks that the wings of eagle are more useful and the other one is thinking about hummingbird's wings.

But it is not happening , we see species with one united shape (little differences).

Why would you think that they all should have unique and very different kinds of wings? Also, how are eagle and hummingbird wings different other than the size? It's the same bones and basic shape. You think there's less variance in bat wing sizes or what?

reply to post by rickymouse


Your use of the word somehow is what shocks me. I'm suprissed your not instantly claiming that evolution did it.

reply to post by rickymouse


It's no real shocker that we know very little about the brain.

Just like the wiki on the 10% brain myth, they are sure that its only a myth but turn around and claim that we know very little about the brain.

reply to post by iterationzero


And as a result I havent used the blue laminate any longer.