delurking: one of my issues regarding evolution

Apos · Apr 3, 2006

In case the OP comes back to help end this trainwreck, I wanted to note as part of my response to him an extension on the dog breeding thing.

You see, while mutation has certainly tied the theory of evolution together quite nicely and helped us understand at a very basic level what's going on, it helps to understand that Darwin was able to grok his basic idea without having a clue about mutation, genes, or any special definition of information (and in fact, his concept of heredity was 100% wrong!)

That's because Darwin could observe the end result: variation. Increasing trait variation in populations over time. It's one thing to
wonder about the underlying mechanics. But evolution, as well as adaptation (which can bring with it increased complexity over time) is something we can work out as inevitable even if we're watching the gross scale with no understanding of what is causing the underlying variations to emerge. The plain fact is that however they do, they do, and that's all that evolution needs to work on to create, in some cases, more complex forms (which I suppose might fit one idea of what an information increase is).

Amora · Apr 3, 2006

Jet Black said:
Since you're the self professed Educated person, can you tell me where I went wrong with this:
ww.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=10751034&postcount=9

well actualy you DID make a mistake. the reverse transcriptase is NOT the enzyme that incorporates the DNA from the virus into the genome. What it is, is an RNA dependant, DNA polymerase. i.e. it transcribes DNA, from RNA. You ment, of course, the integrase enzyme. but i'l readily admit that this is a nit pick hehe. Otherwise i am not familiar enough with HERV's to catch any other problems...

Apos said:
In case the OP comes back to help end this trainwreck, I wanted to note as part of my response to him an extension on the dog breeding thing.

I am in the middle of formulating some sort of summary and a sort of answer. gimme another day or so for it. But did you not say "this stuff is endlessly interesting"?

Apos said:
SNIP

That's because Darwin could observe the end result: variation. Increasing trait variation in populations over time. It's one thing to
wonder about the underlying mechanics. But evolution, as well as adaptation (which can bring with it increased complexity over time) is something we can work out as inevitable even if we're watching the gross scale with no understanding of what is causing the underlying variations to emerge. The plain fact is that however they do, they do, and that's all that evolution needs to work on to create, in some cases, more complex forms (which I suppose might fit one idea of what an information increase is).

Well the only way i see to poke holes in this theory, and ill admit there IS a mountain of evidence supporting it, much of it ill stipulate to in a heartbeat, is to examine the underlying principles that purport to support said theory.

Thats exactly what happened in the 1930's, when Darwins original theory was falling apart, because the underlying understanding was making no sense, hence neo-Darwinian theories were developed.

TeddyKGB · Apr 3, 2006

Amora said:
well actualy you DID make a mistake. the reverse transcriptase is NOT the enzyme that incorporates the DNA from the virus into the genome. What it is, is an RNA dependant, DNA polymerase. i.e. it transcribes DNA, from RNA. You ment, of course, the integrase enzyme. but i'l readily admit that this is a nit pick hehe. Otherwise i am not familiar enough with HERV's to catch any other problems...

Um, if I'm not mistaken, RNA dependent DNA polymerase is a reverse transcriptase. Or at least it is a component.

Apos · Apr 3, 2006

Thats exactly what happened in the 1930's, when Darwins original theory was falling apart, because the underlying understanding was making no sense, hence neo-Darwinian theories were developed.

I'm not sure what you mean by falling apart. In regards to Darwin's understanding of heredity, he himself agreed that it was probably wrong not many years after first publishing Origin and just about everyone knew right from the start that something other than trait blending had to be the case. It was one of Darwin's biggest mistakes: but then, he never read Mendel (though he apparently owned a copy). He did speculate that heredity might be particulate, but never hit on the right track.

In the 1930s, that substrate, underlying system was first widely known and connected to evolutionary mechanisms.

People have been declaring evolution "a dying theory" for hundreds of years now. It's apparently always on the verge of collapsing, at least according to creationists:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

Amora · Apr 3, 2006

TeddyKGB said:
Um, if I'm not mistaken, RNA dependent DNA polymerase is a reverse transcriptase. Or at least it is a component.

of course of course.
i was just saying that the RT is not the one that integrates the RT'd DNA into the genome, as can be understood from Jet's post...

rmwilliamsll · Apr 3, 2006

Amora said:
of course of course.
i was just saying that the RT is not the one that integrates the RT'd DNA into the genome, as can be understood from Jet's post...

thank you very much for the dialogue

i will take
Retroviral integrase is synthesised as part of the POL polyprotein that contains; an aspartyl protease, a reverse transcriptase, RNase H and integrase.
from: http://www.factbites.com/topics/RNase-H
found while trying to better understand the above exchange.

as my fact for the day, multiple vitamin for my brain....

anunbeliever · Apr 3, 2006

Apos said:
So? And a salamander has a larger, more complex genome than a human being.

I didnt know that. I was under the impression that humans have the most complicated genome. Thanks for the clarification.

Apos · Apr 3, 2006

Many creatures that have multiple stages of life have more complex and longer genomes. Heck, they have whole other bodies to specify.

Jet Black · Apr 4, 2006

anunbeliever said:
I didnt know that. I was under the impression that humans have the most complicated genome. Thanks for the clarification.

no. we are fairly similar to the other mammals in terms of the length and complexity of our genomes. We don't have anything particularly magical to code for.

Edx · Apr 4, 2006

Split Rock said:
If Man and another Ape had the same DNA sequences, then they would be the same species!

And you'd also be a clone, wouldnt you?

jwu · Apr 4, 2006

Jet Black said:
no. we are fairly similar to the other mammals in terms of the length and complexity of our genomes. We don't have anything particularly magical to code for.

Isn't the lifeform with the longest genome fern? I've heard of it havig a genome about a hundred times as long as that of humans.

mikeynov · Apr 6, 2006

Amora said:
lo all, delurk post.

i am a religious jew.
i DO fully believe in the Hebrew Bible, though as a scientist (PhD Biology) i belong more or less to the "no connection between religion and science" group. (creation or not, evolution or not, has no bearing on my Belief)

BUT, i am still very interested in the arguments for all sides and follow them closely.

One of the arguments against evolution, has to with, as i am sure the people on this board are aware, the fact that mutations cant really add information. (the smallest bit of information being a single nucleotide. Though one might argue that acetyl groups and methylation might also be information bits) If the neo-Darwinian assumptions are correct, then over the millions of years, not only have mutations led to positive selectable traits, but there has to be some mechanism that had to have added millions of lines of code, millions of times over (for each divergence's progeny). Genes coming from bacteria and genetic mechanisms like transposomes DON’T answer this question. Mutations themselves don't and i have not read any theory to answer this.

As one who has played a lot with genes, added genes to cells in various ways, induced mutations, understands the principles of adaptation, and loves cookies and milk, i have not found an answer to this, and am sure someone here has one.

the reason i am looking for one, is not to "prove" anything to any side, i just like having both sides of all coins in my hand. I want to be able to say to any replies to me, " Hmm, good point there, why did I not think of that".

Oh and why am i lookign here for my answers? thats another story and would take an entire post to answer...

thanks

Don't take this the wrong way, but I have a real hard time believing you're a PhD in biology and you seem unaware that mutations can add nucleotides :\

This is first day of biology 101 stuff.

Jet Black · Apr 6, 2006

jwu said:
Isn't the lifeform with the longest genome fern? I've heard of it havig a genome about a hundred times as long as that of humans.

well some ferns have ~500 chromosomes.

delurking: one of my issues regarding evolution

Active Member

Regular Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Active Member

Regular Member

avid reader

Veteran

Active Member

Jet Black

Guest

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Jet Black

Guest

Similar threads