• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

DNA preserves the integrity of its program

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by pshun2404, Aug 15, 2017.

  1. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +17,452
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Repeated occurrences of speciation. But even "species" is only an arbitrary marker of evolutionary change. Wasn't it Feuerbach who defined man as "the species-making animal?"
     
  2. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    DNA fulfills its purpose so predictably that it is not reasonable in my opinion to assume that it came about via random mutations over time.
    Classic argument from incredulity.

    Sad for you that you do not know the difference between incredulity and opinion! That must make you unnecessarily judgmental of others who disagree with you. What is your OPINION about how DNA came about?
     
  3. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Speed...so when you said "no order will move from one existing class to another. All evolution can do is branch; there are no crossovers" how does this fit Subduction's assumption that reptiles eventually became mammals (for example)? Is this not a cross over demonstrating some transmutation took place over millions or billions of years? Are they not in different "classes"?
     
  4. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +6,844
    Atheist
    Not really; I can recognise an opinion expressing incredulity when I see one.

    I don't have a particular opinion on it, other than the 'RNA world' hypothesis seems fairly plausible, and provides a route to a DNA-based genome. But there are other interesting hypotheses.
     
  5. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Not really; I can recognise an opinion expressing incredulity when I see one.

    Good twist...and yes there are about five ideas today. The most common being the RNA world hypothesis.
     
  6. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +17,452
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    The class mammalia did not, could not, exist prior to the evolution of mammals, so no, it is not a cross-over. In fact, the "class" did not exist prior to humans inventing it.
     
  7. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    And where or how did the class mammallia come from? Did they just suddenly appear as the geo-column actually shows, or did they transmutate from an earlier class over time?
     
  8. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +17,452
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Mammals evolved from synapsids. What makes you think they just "suddenly appeared?"
     
  9. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus Well-Known Member

    +2,964
    Netherlands
    Christian
    Single
    Creation obviously.
     
  10. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Because they are not there and then they are (and by the way, synapsids are another man made classification that actually by definition already includes mammals)

    Bats are an excellent example. There are none at a certain point and then they are there (the actual observable data we have)...now I know the undemonstrated pat story of how they evolved from tiny shrew-like creatures that fell out of or jumped out of trees for 1000s of generations eventually evolving wings but there is no evidence to such that s true.
     
  11. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Suzanne Clancy, Senior Research Scientist for Calos Lab at Stanford University, wrote an interesting article on this subject titled “DNA Damage & Repair: Mechanisms for Maintaining DNA Integrity” (Nature Education 1(1):103). She opens the article with an amazing statement. It is not the fact that some protest, but the language. She says “Because DNA is the repository of genetic information in each living cell, its integrity and stability are essential to life. DNA, however, is not inert; rather, it is a chemical entity subject to assault from the environment, and any resulting damage, if not repaired, will lead to mutation and possibly disease.

    You see the implication of the phrase “repository of genetic information” brings with realization of the truth of this fact a number of valid questions. Because a repository is a place where information is stored and/or managed in significant quantities, one can ask where did it come from and how did it get there in the first place?

    Information in a purpose-filled system of such a complex code does not just arise from chaos, so in order to understand this, it is our brain’s tendency to fit the explanation into some comprehensible box! A “could be” or “might be” box (or more than one) is invented by the human mind in an attempt to explain this unexplainable reality.

    All could be or might be boxes at this time boil down to one of two acceptable possibilities. The God of the Gaps notion, or the Ancestor of the Gaps notion. We either got it as an eventual development from those that preceded us or it was a gift from a creator or creators. For those who realize the unlikelihood of mere chemical interaction being the cause of this complexity they revert to an alternate creator category (Aliens “might have” done it).

    At 1 in 10 to the minus 6 lasting mutations per gamete we expect to find 1 mutation per million gametes. And these are almost always neutral (having no effect at all) or causative of damage or disease. Thus the rate of 0.0000001% sustainable random mutation is confirmable by scientific testing and exploration, and because of DNA repair in the gametes, of these, only an incredibly smaller number remain in such a way that they affect the offspring! Now here is the clincher. Of those remaining we only find they cause disease or damage. In all these years of continued research we have NEVER found one (just 1 out of the millions of possibilities) that adds to, or improves the organism, or that has some anatomically transforming affect (other than a few birth defects and so on). Not a single one!

    In G. M. Cooper’s article “DNA Repair” in The Cell: A Molecular Approach, 2nd ed., (Sinauer Associates; 2000) we see again the resulting conclusion of how this process guards rather strictly the “integrity” of the DNA. In fact in all 32 articles I have recently read in scientific presentations and peer reviewed journals, I have only found one that interprets this data as being supportive in bringing about such transformations of host members from one class to another, and of course this is hypothetical at best.

    Why then do so many believe it is part of the cause for such transformations such as one would expect if amphibians were to become reptiles, or gorillas or orangutans into chimps and humans? To me (this is called an opinion, Frum) since there is no actual evidence, I cannot see why it is insisted I must hold this opinion to pass my courses or to be accepted in forums like these by other scientifically oriented thinkers.
     
  12. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    It is like how regarding “speciation” since ALL the evidence we have observed in Nature and in labs shows that this process ONLY produces variety within a given type of organism why should we IMAGINE it as part of the cause of amphibians becoming reptiles, or gorillas or orangutans becoming chimps and humans? IMO, it is irrational not to simply accept the data we have just as it is rather than spending over 100 years (and many millions of dollars) trying to prove the hypothesis based presupposition instead!

    Cannot people so inundated by the appeal to opinion based alleged authority not see the difference between the actual data and the historical narrative attached? YECs seem to have the exact same problem. Is it a mental block of some sort, or brainwashing? Perhaps it is a human thing where most people follow their herd where ever it leads. Does not the possibility they may be incorrect ever occur to them? Will it occur to them after say 1000 years? Probably not...
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
  13. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +6,844
    Atheist
    Who believes or insists that gorillas or orangutans turn into chimps and humans?
     
  14. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +17,452
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Why the concern with "class?" Why the concern with crossing an arbitrary dividing line between man-made categories of what is essentially a continuum?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  15. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Fine! Let's say it is a continuum. What came from what and how?
     
  16. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus Well-Known Member

    +2,964
    Netherlands
    Christian
    Single
    What evidence supports it's not classes but a continuum then? :scratch:
     
  17. Bugeyedcreepy

    Bugeyedcreepy Well-Known Member

    +1,420
    Atheist
    Private
    All of it, of course... We've done it in the lab with fruit flies, we've seen it in the wild with Italian island Lizards, etc. We can see gradients in the fossil records of speciating humans even...
     
  18. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    And what have we seen in all these places is that speciating only produces variety within the same class (but never one becoming another...no fish becoming reptiles and so on)
     
  19. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    +2,555
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Not really. It's what is utilized chemically to determine what proteins and RNA the cell produces, and it makes perfect sense that the DNA that would be best at persisting would be that which instigates the production of molecules that improve replication and structural integrity. It'd be much more perplexing if DNA didn't do that.

    -_- earliest eukaryotes had them? Quite possibly, but that's not confirmed by any means, seeing as we can't get DNA from fossils that old. Perhaps these early eukaryotes had fewer of them, who knows?


    This source is too old to be used as a reliable reference. As a general rule, it is best not to use sources older than 5 years when it comes to the sciences, and I would pressure people to use ones as recent as humanly possible when it comes to the subject of genetics specifically, due to how much progress occurs within that field even in just a single year. It's well known now that mutation rates vary significantly between different species. For example, if this number was based on humans, it would err high for the majority of species, as humans have notably high mutation rates.

    Furthermore, I don't think you quite understand how difficult it would be to detect the mutations that the cell fixes before DNA replication is completed, seeing as the first corrective molecules follow right behind the replicating strand. Especially in 2004.

    Almost nil? In humans, it can be as bad as 1 mistake per 100 nucleotides that doesn't get fixed in the most mutation prone regions of our DNA. That's ridiculously high, especially considering how much better at it bacteria are (as low as 1 mistake per 1 billion nucleotides getting through despite the repair mechanisms). Seeing as bacteria generally have much shorter DNA than 1 billion bases, that means multiple generations can occur without mutations at all. Heck, if it weren't for how fast bacteria replicate and their large numbers, they would be terrible for evolutionary observation.


    -_- in bacteria, perhaps. This doesn't apply to eukaryotes, which generally have much higher mutation rates. Furthermore, single base pair mutations are actually some of the easiest for the repair mechanisms to notice, since it causes a physical irregularity in the DNA structure that prevents a spot from chemically hooking together... assuming that only a single base on one of the strands is affected.

    Mostly neutral, given that the mutations can hit places on the DNA that have no function and most codons are redundant. Plus, a few of the amino acids different codons signal have similar chemical properties to each other to such an extent that there's no measurable difference in the resulting protein product function despite a change in amino acid. Detrimental ones can range from measurably reducing function efficiency a little to producing protein products so useless that the cell dies early. That's quite the range, isn't it? When people talk about detrimental mutations, they often mistakenly only point out examples like cancers or other conditions resulting in cellular death or physical agony, neglecting much more minor detriments that are more common.

    People also neglect to mention that our DNA has redundancy in the genes. Yes, the same gene can be present multiple times. Thus, even if one copy of the gene has been rendered useless thanks to mutation, the other copies can pick up the slack.

    You are also talking in terms of just 1 cell. Our bodies have trillions of them. Plenty die every day from age and mutation, and our bodies keep up with that until around the age of 25. This is part of why we grow old and die.


    About 5% of mutations are measurably benign. Although, only the ones which occur in gametes are relevant to evolution. You aren't going to pass down any mutations that occur in one of your skin cells to the next generation no matter if it is benign, detrimental, or neutral.

    Which fails so much in humans that the miscarriage rate among people that know they are pregnant is 10-20%, and is even higher at the zygote stage at between 30-50%. The worst of the worst mutations are weeded out early on. Consider a condition no one wants to be diagnosed with: Huntington's disease. Now, this condition is non-symptomatic during the time in a person's life in which they are most likely to have children (historically, as until modern times most people would have kids before turning 30, though this is the low end of the typical range of symptoms beginning to appear). Is it heavily detrimental and deadly? Absolutely. Does it reduce reproductive success? Nope. As long as a detrimental mutation doesn't result in death prior to the reproductive years or reduce fertility or reproductive chances, natural selection isn't going to weed it out at all, and those people are free to also pass down any benign and neutral mutations they have or have occurred in their gametes.

    Now, the mutations for Huntington's are dominant genes, but a lot of the most common genes which cause genetic disease are recessive. This is especially true for those that cause death in childhood, such as Tay-Sachs. That is, a recessive detrimental mutation can persist and not interfere with life at all as long as you aren't homozygous for it and also have the normal gene present in your DNA. As Tay-Sachs kills so young, no couple having children can be true breeding for it. That is, at worst, only about 1 out of 4 of their children will have this condition. Thus, as long as the benign mutations they have outweigh the reduction in reproductive success, this will persist.

    Then there are conditions such as sickle cell anemia, which are a mixed bag rather than being outright detrimental. If a person is homozygous for the gene, they do suffer disease affects and may die before reproductive age, but plenty do survive even without medical intervention long enough to have children. People heterozygous for the gene rarely have symptoms, though they do have some sickle cells. However, both homozygous and heterozygous people have a resistance to malaria due to the sickle cells. Since malaria is a much more deadly than sickle cell anemia, in areas in which malaria is a huge problem, this mutation is benign. In places with proper medical treatment and areas where malaria isn't present, it's detrimental. Many mutations you can see that create variation in people are like that: dark skin prevents damage in sunny, hot places, but doesn't allow for high enough vitamin D production in cold areas where one has to cover up most of their skin and go through periods of reduced sunlight. The genes that helped some people resist the Bubonic Plague in the 1300s are also responsible for somewhat weaker immune systems overall. Since most traits in general aren't universally benign or detrimental, which category a mutation falls under can be entirely situational depending on what organism experiences it and what environment it lives in. Yes, even genes which help aid the integrity of DNA itself could prove to be not worth the resources they utilize and thus be more detrimental than benign.

    -_- what does it even mean for DNA to fulfill its "purpose so predictably"? It took decades of research and observation to figure out how DNA works and apply any degree of predictability to it. Furthermore, there is plenty we still do not understand, conditions we are unsure are mostly genetic or mostly due to the environment. By their very nature, predictive models for multifactoral traits affected by many genes are currently impossible to make just because of how complex the inheritance pattern is and the number of different alleles that have to be accounted for.

    Furthermore, while mutations are mostly random, the other factors that influence inheritance and DNA are not. Natural selection is determined by the environment an organism lives in, for example. DNA isn't, nor ever has been, the product of purely random events. However, this doesn't mean the non-random events were guided by some intelligent mind.

    -_- nucleic acids can form in nature, and they appear as chains of RNA in the protocells that appeared during abiogenesis experiments. No shock that RNA and not DNA would be the first genetic material in cells; it does most of the legwork in modern ones. In fact, DNA has to be transcribed to RNA before it can produce proteins. That doesn't sound like a system optimized for DNA, does it?

    Also, I find it interesting that you didn't mention one of the last lines of defense against mutation: apoptosis. You know, where the mutation in DNA is too significant for any of the repair mechanisms to fix it, so the cell kills itself. Cells can also enter an irreversible dormancy if their DNA is too severely damaged.

    You also don't mention that inevitably, cells will be unable to continue to replicate their DNA and divide... except for cancer cells. Yes, cells in which all repair mechanisms for DNA and even the back up of cell mediated death can divide indefinitely as long as there are resources around them that allow for it. Cells don't need these repair mechanisms to actually survive and reproduce, they're just better off with them so they don't divide out of control and deplete the surrounding resources to the point that the whole colony eventually dies off from starvation or being crushed by each other if the area they are dividing in is small (like bacteria on a Petri dish).

    What persists in a population is not the organism with the fewest mutations, but the one which manages to make what it has work. What survives and reproduces successfully persists, no more, no less. This is why there are so many physical flaws in living things which persist; they simply weren't detrimental enough NOT to persist.
     
  20. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +17,452
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Look for yourself. Taxonomy is an arbitrary man-made classification system imposed on what, by observation, is almost a continuum of living types--that's why species determination is often difficult and sometimes controversial. Are you perhaps of the opinion that the taxonomic rank of class is equivalent to biblical "kinds?"
     
Loading...