Evolutionary debate

Wiccan_Child said:

Why do I have a sudden urge to go read up on Thalidomide?

Click to expand...

Information of many types can be useful.
Thalidomide use has increased substantially lately.

lucaspa said:

..Once you have changes that will produce a new species, there is nothing to stop multiple speciations spread thru time producing humans from "another form of life"...

Click to expand...

DNA has self-repair mechanisms that repair most all changes.

SkyWriting said:

Most of evolution theory can be rechecked and tested for viability. The parts that can't are those that take more multiple human generations to produce substantial change from random or directed random mutations. Suffice to say that if mutations were good, then species exposed to larger amounts of radiation would be better adapted than those shielded from mutation causing radiation. Since we have no evidence for that, then the whole "random mutations as a source of new life forms" is invalid.

Click to expand...

Wah, woah, what? You seem to show you understand the theory, but then come out with this strange non sequitur. The principle doesn't become invalid just because there's no evidence for it. And besides, there is evidence for it. Do you deny that there are such things as mutations?

SkyWriting said:

Natural selection and forced selection of varieties of species can produce changes in populations. Dogs have been bred with certain characteristics for certain desired uses. While a DNA has been selected from the variations, no new DNA has been added. Evolution theory covers how changes occur to DNA but does not cover how DNA was formed or how new chromosomes get added to create different forms of life.

Click to expand...

New chromosomes do indeed get added by mutation, and we've seen it happen. Ever heard of Down's syndrome? While it's obviously a detriment, it's nonetheless proof that a mutation that increases the number of chromosomes isn't necessarily fatal. Chromosome replication that is either beneficial or neutral would exist in subsequent generations, and mutations on this 'bonus' chromosome would eventually lead to it being unique and distinct among the genome: instead of being a redundant clone, it now holds vital genetic information.

Ever heard of human chromosome #2? It demonstrates a fusion of two chromosomes that are present in the Great Apes. We have 23, they have 24; the 'missing' chromosome was proposed to be a fusion of two chromosomes in our distant past. This prediction* implies that one of our modern chromosomes must exhibit evidence of being two chromosomes fused. And what do we find? Well, normal chromosomes have a centromere in the middle, and two telomeres on the ends. Chromosome #2 has a long, dead telomere in the middle, and two centromeres on either side of it about halfway towards the end. Which is exactly what we expect.
Anyway, point is, chromosome number can change, and it isn't necessarily fatal to the point where selection pressures can't exist.

Furthermore, new DNA can be added. Point mutation and ERV insertion are direct ways for the genome to increase in length, and chromosome replication is a more drastic (albeit rare) way.

*And it is indeed a prediction. Don't believe Creationists when they say evolution is in the past, so can't make predictions, so can't be science, so must be religion.

SkyWriting said:

Evolutionists are at their boldest (and stretching) when stating that one species can evolve into another.

Click to expand...

Well, we've seen it happen. It follows directly from theoretical analysis of genetic flow in population dynamics, and we've seen it happen naturally in the wild, accidentally in human habitat, and artificially in the lab.

SkyWriting said:

That's not saying much. And it certainly doesn't explain the origins of DNA, why DNA works so hard to correct errors, the adding of chromosomes, or the creation of new forms of life. But they have faith that it does.

Click to expand...

No, we don't, because we know that it isn't meant to. That's like saying germ theory doesn't explain how atoms behave; well, yea, of course it doesn't, but it's not meant to. Atomic behaviour is dealt with by other theories. Likewise, the origin of life and DNA is dealt with by abiogenesis, a distinction Creationists can't seem to get their heads around.

So even having said that we as humans have evolved from the time God put us here, why is this idea have to be anti-God. Not everyone who believes in God and Him creating everything believes the bible's account as being litteral. To me the Adam and Eve account can easily be interpretted as the moment that humans became aware of God. Maybe we finally evolved enough mentally to realize He is there. In fact our whole world continues to change daily. The tectonic plates move and this earth evolves, so why wouldn't everything else. The big question is from where we evolved. As an emiba, monkey or as a human.

SkyWriting said:

DNA has self-repair mechanisms that repair most all changes.

Click to expand...

source?

Nathan Poe said:

source?

Click to expand...

its written in da sky.

SkyWriting said:

DNA has self-repair mechanisms that repair most all changes.

Click to expand...

There certainly are DNA repair enzymes, for instance for repair of thymine dimers induced on sun exposure. People with defective DNA repair enzymes have a condition known a Xeroderma pigmentosum and must carefully avoid even the slightest sun exposure or they develop multiple basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas. However, these enzymes are not 100% efficient or no one would get sun induced skin cancer. But these mutations are not passed on in any case. It is obvious that many mutations in the germ line are passed on or there would not be be huge number of single nucleotide and other polymorphisms in the human genome.

Frumious Bandersnatch said:

There certainly are DNA repair enzymes, for instance for repair of thymine dimers induced on sun exposure. People with defective DNA repair enzymes have a condition known a Xeroderma pigmentosum and must carefully avoid even the slightest sun exposure or they develop multiple basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas. However, these enzymes are not 100% efficient or no one would get sun induced skin cancer. But these mutations are not passed on in any case. It is obvious that many mutations in the germ line are passed on or there would not be be huge number of single nucleotide and other polymorphisms in the human genome.

Click to expand...

Any yet that show promise?

Frumious Bandersnatch said:

There certainly are DNA repair enzymes, for instance for repair of thymine dimers induced on sun exposure. People with defective DNA repair enzymes have a condition known a Xeroderma pigmentosum and must carefully avoid even the slightest sun exposure or they develop multiple basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas. However, these enzymes are not 100% efficient or no one would get sun induced skin cancer. But these mutations are not passed on in any case. It is obvious that many mutations in the germ line are passed on or there would not be be huge number of single nucleotide and other polymorphisms in the human genome.

Click to expand...

ScienceDirect - DNA Repair, Volume 9, Issue 6,


DNA Repair


The recent publication of the human genome [Link] has already revealed 130 genes whose products participate in DNA repair. More will probably be identified




And 3 million more entries.

SkyWriting said:

Any yet that show promise?

Click to expand...

Any what that show promise?

Frumious Bandersnatch said:

There certainly are DNA repair enzymes, for instance for repair of thymine dimers induced on sun exposure. People with defective DNA repair enzymes have a condition known a Xeroderma pigmentosum and must carefully avoid even the slightest sun exposure or they develop multiple basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas. However, these enzymes are not 100% efficient or no one would get sun induced skin cancer. But these mutations are not passed on in any case. It is obvious that many mutations in the germ line are passed on or there would not be be huge number of single nucleotide and other polymorphisms in the human genome.

Click to expand...

Any beneficial mutations you can point to that show promise of improving the organism.

(People have come up with one or two they could defend at some level. I found a list of 10 by golly.)

SkyWriting said:

Any beneficial mutations you can point to that show promise of improving the organism that failed to destroy the mutant DNA first?

Click to expand...

I've read this 3 times now and it still doesn't make any sense.

SW, how much do you know about DNA and genetics?

USincognito said:

I've read this 3 times now and it still doesn't make any sense.

SW, how much do you know about DNA and genetics?

Click to expand...

I agree. I can't figure out the beneficial mutations claim either.
Go figure.

"I can now assure you that the ability to comprehend descent with modification, natural selection, speciation, and other related concepts can be easily taught to kindergartners and first-graders. "

I suggest making the clearest case at a 10th grade level.

SkyWriting said:

I agree. I can't figure out the beneficial mutations claim either.
Go figure.

"I can now assure you that the ability to comprehend descent with modification, natural selection, speciation, and other related concepts can be easily taught to kindergartners and first-graders. "

I suggest making the clearest case at a 10th grade level.

Click to expand...

Sickle-cell anaemia. A mutation that helps fight malaria. It is more likely to occur in those of sub-Saharan descent (i.e., places where malaria is strong).
Lactose tolerance. Most humans are lactose intolerant, because we don't drink milk beyond infancy. But, some cultures do drink milk beyond infancy, because it's a good source of calcium, etc. In those places, mutations which cause lactose tolerance are beneficial, so lactose tolerance has become the norm. For example, lactose tolerance is in 95% of northern Europeans, but only ~29% of southern Europeans, only ~10% of Africans and Asians, and 0% of Native Americans.
There is a mutation that modifies a protein known as CCR5 and confers a resistance to HIV, since HIV can use CCR5 to attack cells.

Beneficial mutations. They exist, they happen, they add to genetic information, they create new DNA. All the things that Creationist insist can't happen (usually conjuring up some imaginary 'barrier' that God maintains).

SkyWriting said:

I agree. I can't figure out the beneficial mutations claim either.
Go figure.

Click to expand...

Do you know why your doctor tells you to finish your antibiotic even though you think you may be over your disease?

Do you know how hericide resistent crop strains were developed prior to genetic engineering techiniques?

Do you know why some people are more sensitive to drugs and toxins than others?

"I can now assure you that the ability to comprehend descent with modification, natural selection, speciation, and other related concepts can be easily taught to kindergartners and first-graders. "

I suggest making the clearest case at a 10th grade level

Click to expand...

Maybe this is your problem
Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?

Frumious Bandersnatch said:

Do you know why your doctor tells you to finish your antibiotic even though you think you may be over your disease?

Click to expand...

Because of adaptation?

SkyWriting said:

Most of evolution theory can be rechecked and tested for viability. The parts that can't are those that take more multiple human generations to produce substantial change from random or directed random mutations.

Click to expand...

Those too can be tested, and they are put to the test every time a fossil is dug up of the ground or a genome is sequenced or a study in comparative anatomy is performed etc. But sure there are certain limits on what tests to perform, given our lack of time machines.

SkyWriting said:

Suffice to say that if mutations were good, then species exposed to larger amounts of radiation would be better adapted than those shielded from mutation causing radiation.

Click to expand...

In my second year of studying biology we actually UV radiated yeast cells to induce beneficial mutations, making them capable of surviving on a certain medium. We found no surviving colonies on plates with unradiated yeast. We found a few colonies on plates radiated for 3 seconds. Even more colonies at 6 seconds and it topped at 9 seconds. After that the number of colonies quickly dropped, as there had been introduced too much DNA damage for the yeast cells to be able to survive. We had new populations genetically different from the population they came from and selected to survive on a new medium. This is basically evolution in a single step where we controlled the quantity of mutations and the environmental selection, thereby inducing beneficial mutations. These are easily replicable experiments and biology classes do this and similar experiments every day around the world.

Btw, it's wrong to simply say that mutations are good. You're seeing things in a very black and white way. Mutations aren't either good or bad. Sometimes they're beneficial, sometimes they're harmful, usually they're neutral. When you simply say "mutations are good", you're essentially saying that 100% of mutations are good. That's neither what evolution requires, or proposes, so you're not addressing evolution at all.

SkyWriting said:

Since we have no evidence for that, then the whole "random mutations as a source of new life forms" is invalid.

Click to expand...

We do have evidence that mutations can be beneficial, and there are many examples if you dig through the literature. If you don't know how, I can dig out some studies or science articles for you to read.

SkyWriting said:

Natural selection and forced selection of varieties of species can produce changes in populations. Dogs have been bred with certain characteristics for certain desired uses. While a DNA has been selected from the variations, no new DNA has been added.

Click to expand...

That's a blind assertion. Since you're not omniscient, you're stating things without knowledge.

That said, you can read about the various mutations that we know occur in organisms, here: Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, let's make it simple. Take any DNA sequence and you can turn into into any other sequence, using the mutations that are known to occur. You can try this for yourself. For instance, how can we turn CAT into TAGCT? Like this:

CAT-> duplication-> CATCAT -> inversion -> TACCAT -> substitution -> TAGCAT -> deletion -> TAGCT

Easy, isn't it? Of course creationists keep arguing that no new DNA was created, since it's just manipulating the existant DNA. So what? It's still an entirely different sequence, and that's the whole point.

SkyWriting said:

Evolution theory covers how changes occur to DNA but does not cover how DNA was formed

Click to expand...

Actually there are hypotheses about DNA taking over the heritary material of early life forms from an RNA world. But considering how long ago that happened, it's very difficult to examine. Still, not knowing everything, doesn't mean that we don't know anything. We know alot of what happened later. Keep in mind that scientific theories doesn't make us all-knowing. There will always be holes in our knowledge, no matter how good out theories are.

SkyWriting said:

or how new chromosomes get added to create different forms of life.

Click to expand...

There are known mechanisms whereby chromosomes arise, and again they arise not as entirely new, but as reworkings of the existing chromosomes. You can read about it in the link I gave. And a chromosome rearrangement doesn't result in entirely new life. Likely, the offspring will be more or less identical to its parents.

SkyWriting said:

Evolutionists are at their boldest (and stretching) when stating that one species can evolve into another. That's not saying much.

Click to expand...

Actually it's saying much, as the species barrier is the only proposed barrier with any validity. Once that is crossed, you have made 2 distinct gene pools from a single gene pool. These can now evolve down their own paths, and split yet again at a later point. Hence the origin of species.

SkyWriting said:

And it certainly doesn't explain the origins of DNA, why DNA works so hard to correct errors

Click to expand...

Sure it does. Mutations are sometimes harmful, and if there are too many of them there will be too few surviving offspring, hence the individuals with better repair mechanisms will increase in numbers in proportion to the rest of the population. The repair mechanisms are imperfect too, which is ultimately a good thing, otherwise we wouldn't exist.

SkyWriting said:

the adding of chromosomes, or the creation of new forms of life.

Click to expand...

The origin of life you mean? Because as far as we know, that's the only emergence of life we know for sure happened. Abiogenesis is the field dedicated to that. The theory of evolution can still give clues about early life though, and this can be useful to the field of abiogenesis, but they are still different fields of research.

SkyWriting said:

But they have faith that it does.

Click to expand...

Nah.

But I'm glad that we agree that faith can be a bad thing, best to be avoided.

Peter

plindboe said:

[snip]

Peter

Click to expand...

Good luck trying to get a response, he seems to ignore posts...

AV1611VET said:

Because of adaptation?

Click to expand...

Which can occur through either horizontal gene transfer from other bacteria but also occurs because of mutations that produce antibotic resistance in the orginal bacteria. If you don't treat long enough you can leave a small pool of organisms that have some resistance to the antibiotic and they can give you an infection that will require a different antibiotic. You can also get some surprises. After taking a fairly long course of oral erythromycin for an infection, which was cured, We were able to culture a significant population of erythomycin resistant bacteria from swabs of the skin on my face. This probably came from the drug since I don't normally use antibacterial soaps or lotions on my face.

Frumious Bandersnatch said:

Which can occur through either horizontal gene transfer from other bacteria but also occurs because of mutations that produce antibotic resistance in the orginal bacteria. If you don't treat long enough you can leave a small pool of organisms that have some resistance to the antibiotic and they can give you an infection that will require a different antibiotic. You can also get some surprises. After taking a fairly long course of oral erythromycin for an infection, which was cured, We were able to culture a significant population of erythomycin resistant bacteria from swabs of the skin on my face. This probably came from the drug since I don't normally use antibacterial soaps or lotions on my face.

Click to expand...

And so the point is what? that man came before whales, contrary to what the Bible says?