- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
"If monstrous forms of this kind ever do appear in a state of nature and are capable of reproduction (which is not always the case), as they occur rarely and singly, their preservation would depend on unusually favourable circumstances. They would, also, during the first and succeeding generations cross with the ordinary form, and thus their abnormal character would almost inevitably be lost. But I shall have to return in a future chapter to the preservation and perpetuation of single or occasional variations. " (Darwin, Origin of Species, ch.2)
One of the reasons that natural selection was such a popular concept is because it offered a contructive basis from changes that could be gradually accumulated. Darwin was confounded with the lack of dramatic change in nature and often criticised for trying to equate natural selection with artificial selection. The reason being, for instance, was what he called the bane of horticulture where new hybrids were so often sterile and in the passage above he makes the same observation. For unlimited change of the level he was suggesting he had to have a mechanism that preserved, not selected, inheritable changes. Monstrocites, like modern observations of mutations, offer no genetic basis for such transitional changes.
Genetics has discovered a large number of mechansims for change and calling them mutations does not adequetly describe the process:
"Contingency genes are the bacteriums answer to the rapidly changing landscape," says Moxon.
Each gene can be flicked on or off, and the switching mechanism is random mutation within the switch region. Each time a bacterium divides, one mutation within the switch region might turn the gene sequence to rubbish, effectively turning the gene off. A mutation in a switched-off genes switch region might restore that genes activity.
Contingency genes function like a "library of thousands to millions of potential variants," says Moxon. With one of these genes, the bacterium has two variations on hand. Two genes provide four alternatives. With 20 contingency genes, a bacterium would have a repertoire of more than a million possible variations. When Moxons team analyzed the genome of the bacterium N. meningitidis, they found 65 possible contingency genesenough to put billions and billions of variations in the bank.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_00/gandg_quickswitch_3_24.shtml
Bacteria have a tendancy to mutate under conditions where resources are scarce. Biologists and genticists have documented that as many as 1 in 7 can mutate and often the mutated strains show a slight selective advantage that allows them to survive. Now that is natural selection in a nutshell. There is something misleading with this, the mutated gene will be shut off. There is a simular misconception about the simularities and differences in chimpanzee and human genomes, particularly with regards to coding regions.
Among the 231 genes associated to a canonical ORF;
1) 179 show a coding sequence of identical length in human and chimpanzee and exhibit similar intronexon boundaries.
2) For those 179 genes, the average nucleotide and amino acid identity in the coding region is 99.29% and 99.18%.
3) Of these, 39 genes show an identical amino acid sequence between human and chimpanzee.
4) Seven in which the nucleotide sequence of the coding region is also identical.
179 are the same length, the amino acid identity is virtually identical and 39 show identical amino acid sequence between them. However, only 7 have nucleotide sequence of the coding region that are identical.
What this means is that there are structurally identical but the are functionally different due to amino acid replacements. The object here is not to identify the differences in the two genomes, which is part of the process, they are trying to identify what the genome of the mrca would have looked like. The reason the describe the fifteen indels in the chimpanzee chromosome is that they expect that is the number of changes the successive generation would have gone through.
"Conclusion
This study shows a chromosome-wide comparison between human and chimpanzee based on high-quality sequences, and provides the first integrated picture of genetic changes during human evolution. The data presented here suggest that the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated. We hope that our work offers a framework for the design of future studies to examine differences between the two species."
All they did was to compare the two genomes and this simple concept seems lost in these discussions. The protein coding sequences are 20% different and the genes expressed in the brain and liver were found to have anywhere from a 1.5-10 fold difference. These difference cannot be accounted for the by the way bacteria can turn genes on and off. The genes themselves must be changed on an amino acid and nucleotide level and the structural size is irrelavant. I don't know what is so hard to understand about the difference between an oliometric repeats and nucleotide seqeunce insertions and deletions.
Creationism and darwinism are not empirical science and cannot effect the empirical data or scientific methodology in any way, shape or form. Both views offer theories for the origin of novel types of organisms. I have, over some considerable time, came to the conclusion that they are both so far removed from what we call science that they are both useless. To say that creationism can destroy science is absurd and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. Darwinism attacks Biblical theism and creationists launch counter offensives but what they are argueing about is not science, it's supposition and speculative philosophy, nothing more. I'm a creationist because of my views of history and think creationism has promise for reclaiming the common ground between natural science and theology instead of the no man's land of constant bickering.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with Darwin's attack on special creation, the main issue is the energetic costs of adaptation and the preservation of favorable traits. There are limits to how much change living systems can endure simply because there are limits to the number of random combinations that are possible given the number of genes. I have yet to see the slightest shread of evidence that there is a genetic basis for producing a novel gene.
I only responded to this thread because I thought it would raise honest questions creationists should consider. It originally appeared in the creationist thread and I thought I would be discussing this in the company of YEC creationists. Instead I ended up here watching the whole thing descend in a downward spiral of supposition and anecdotal evidence. In short, it's the same old hat.
One of the reasons that natural selection was such a popular concept is because it offered a contructive basis from changes that could be gradually accumulated. Darwin was confounded with the lack of dramatic change in nature and often criticised for trying to equate natural selection with artificial selection. The reason being, for instance, was what he called the bane of horticulture where new hybrids were so often sterile and in the passage above he makes the same observation. For unlimited change of the level he was suggesting he had to have a mechanism that preserved, not selected, inheritable changes. Monstrocites, like modern observations of mutations, offer no genetic basis for such transitional changes.
Genetics has discovered a large number of mechansims for change and calling them mutations does not adequetly describe the process:
"Contingency genes are the bacteriums answer to the rapidly changing landscape," says Moxon.
Each gene can be flicked on or off, and the switching mechanism is random mutation within the switch region. Each time a bacterium divides, one mutation within the switch region might turn the gene sequence to rubbish, effectively turning the gene off. A mutation in a switched-off genes switch region might restore that genes activity.
Contingency genes function like a "library of thousands to millions of potential variants," says Moxon. With one of these genes, the bacterium has two variations on hand. Two genes provide four alternatives. With 20 contingency genes, a bacterium would have a repertoire of more than a million possible variations. When Moxons team analyzed the genome of the bacterium N. meningitidis, they found 65 possible contingency genesenough to put billions and billions of variations in the bank.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_00/gandg_quickswitch_3_24.shtml
Bacteria have a tendancy to mutate under conditions where resources are scarce. Biologists and genticists have documented that as many as 1 in 7 can mutate and often the mutated strains show a slight selective advantage that allows them to survive. Now that is natural selection in a nutshell. There is something misleading with this, the mutated gene will be shut off. There is a simular misconception about the simularities and differences in chimpanzee and human genomes, particularly with regards to coding regions.
Among the 231 genes associated to a canonical ORF;
1) 179 show a coding sequence of identical length in human and chimpanzee and exhibit similar intronexon boundaries.
2) For those 179 genes, the average nucleotide and amino acid identity in the coding region is 99.29% and 99.18%.
3) Of these, 39 genes show an identical amino acid sequence between human and chimpanzee.
4) Seven in which the nucleotide sequence of the coding region is also identical.
179 are the same length, the amino acid identity is virtually identical and 39 show identical amino acid sequence between them. However, only 7 have nucleotide sequence of the coding region that are identical.
What this means is that there are structurally identical but the are functionally different due to amino acid replacements. The object here is not to identify the differences in the two genomes, which is part of the process, they are trying to identify what the genome of the mrca would have looked like. The reason the describe the fifteen indels in the chimpanzee chromosome is that they expect that is the number of changes the successive generation would have gone through.
"Conclusion
This study shows a chromosome-wide comparison between human and chimpanzee based on high-quality sequences, and provides the first integrated picture of genetic changes during human evolution. The data presented here suggest that the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated. We hope that our work offers a framework for the design of future studies to examine differences between the two species."
All they did was to compare the two genomes and this simple concept seems lost in these discussions. The protein coding sequences are 20% different and the genes expressed in the brain and liver were found to have anywhere from a 1.5-10 fold difference. These difference cannot be accounted for the by the way bacteria can turn genes on and off. The genes themselves must be changed on an amino acid and nucleotide level and the structural size is irrelavant. I don't know what is so hard to understand about the difference between an oliometric repeats and nucleotide seqeunce insertions and deletions.
Creationism and darwinism are not empirical science and cannot effect the empirical data or scientific methodology in any way, shape or form. Both views offer theories for the origin of novel types of organisms. I have, over some considerable time, came to the conclusion that they are both so far removed from what we call science that they are both useless. To say that creationism can destroy science is absurd and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. Darwinism attacks Biblical theism and creationists launch counter offensives but what they are argueing about is not science, it's supposition and speculative philosophy, nothing more. I'm a creationist because of my views of history and think creationism has promise for reclaiming the common ground between natural science and theology instead of the no man's land of constant bickering.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with Darwin's attack on special creation, the main issue is the energetic costs of adaptation and the preservation of favorable traits. There are limits to how much change living systems can endure simply because there are limits to the number of random combinations that are possible given the number of genes. I have yet to see the slightest shread of evidence that there is a genetic basis for producing a novel gene.
I only responded to this thread because I thought it would raise honest questions creationists should consider. It originally appeared in the creationist thread and I thought I would be discussing this in the company of YEC creationists. Instead I ended up here watching the whole thing descend in a downward spiral of supposition and anecdotal evidence. In short, it's the same old hat.
Upvote
0
