PDA

View Full Version : A Discussion on Evolutionary concepts


mscomc
03-29-2009, 08:12 PM
****taking a deep breath in*****

Ok, so i have to admit, I am nervous about starting this topic. The idea for this came from Black Mambas thread about an anatomy seminar he had and from that I asked Bonnie if she would perhaps like to discuss where Evolutionary Biologists are coming from. So this is primarily a topic that originated for us to talk. But of course, I hope we can all discuss this topic.

I would like to take this time to let everyone know that, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT WE ALL CAME FROM A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM

But i do have to say there is some quite compelling and thought pervoking evidence....whether or not it is flawed is something I hope we can all talk about.

And if everyone would like to me to abandon this topic, I will do so at the drop of a hat.:)

mscomc
03-29-2009, 08:24 PM
Ok, so I will start with some evolutionary terms and concepts, just to make sure we are all on the same wavelength.

Also, I think its best if introduced concepts in waves, so we can thorouhgly talk about certain points.

Ok so evolution is just a progessive change in our Genome (our entire genetic makeup in every cell) that may translate to a change in our phenotype (the overal expression of our genes: Height, weight, colour of eyes, foot length, teeth, bone structure, basically the stuff YOU SEE) Now evolution is a very slow process, and takes years and years to happen. An evolved species, doesnt nessecarily mean a " better species". A single change in your bodies DNA is techincally an evolution, and whetehr or not the evoluton happens from natural process or through environment is irrelevant....please just keep that in mind for further posts.

Now as far as I know (having spoken to many religious biologists), no life-sceintist in any field denies that evolution has certainly taken place FROM THE TIME OF MAN. I am going to re-iterate this...... the big controversy stems form whether or not we came from a one single celled organism, and that organism progressively evolved over billions of years to form every other species on the planet, including humans. The debate is NOT whether we evolve right now, since the creation of man. In orther words, the human of today, is not the human of 200 years ago.


I'll discuss certain evidence points that I think will spark the most discussion. The first one will be my next thread.

NateR
03-29-2009, 08:25 PM
I think Black Mamba is going to be mad... that you called her a "he." :laugh:

Anyways, I believe there is plenty of evidence for evolution (ie: slow changes over time) within species. GOD gave all living things the ability to adapt to their environments. So there is some scientific truth to evolution.

However, as a theory for the origin of life, Darwin's theory is dead in the water. Especially since Darwin himself couldn't come up with a satisfactory non-intelligent origin for life and Darwin never ruled out the existence of GOD.

So we'll see where this goes, if it becomes an attack on Christians and Creationism or Intelligent Design, then I'll be forced to close it down.

mscomc
03-29-2009, 08:39 PM
1)

Ok so in early experiments, before we could study at the level of the gene, the first thing we started to look at was compative anatomy. Striking similarities between certain organisms.

I'll give on example that I think illustrates this point. Humans and Pigs

Liver - the human liver has four lobes: right, left, caudate and quadrate. The fetal pig liver has five lobes: right lateral, right central, left central, left lateral, and caudate

Lungs - Like humans, pigs have multi-lobed lungs

Stomach, spleen, bile duct system, small intestines, kidneys, bladder, etc. - the remainder of the abdominal organs found in the fetal pig are basically the same as found in humans

Urethra, ovaries, uterine tubes, labia, mesenteries, testes, epididymis, vas deferens, inguinal canal, prostate gland, etc. - these structures are basically the same in the fetal pig and human

In fact, you can "hook up" a liver from a pig to human who is in liver failure, and it can do its work for him. Some of you may have watched this on an episode of HOUSE in the past. Also, this is the reason you hear people who go to mexico for liver transplants and they get pigs liver.


Now as you can imagine, many of these similarties are present in other oragasims as well. Like the APE. This is evident in the skull structure, musco-skeletal system, jaw structure etc etc.


And, whats even more striking is fetal development......

Take a look at the image from the university of Idaho
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/apefetus.htm .............Notice any similarties? (ill see if i can find some more pictures later)

I my next thread, I will get into some more genetic and biochemical similarties that are not as subjective.

mscomc
03-29-2009, 08:40 PM
I think Black Mamba is going to be mad... that you called her a "he." :laugh:

Anyways, I believe there is plenty of evidence for evolution (ie: slow changes over time) within species. GOD gave all living things the ability to adapt to their environments. So there is some scientific truth to evolution.

However, as a theory for the origin of life, Darwin's theory is dead in the water. Especially since Darwin himself couldn't come up with a satisfactory non-intelligent origin for life and Darwin never ruled out the existence of GOD.

So we'll see where this goes, if it becomes an attack on Christians and Creationism or Intelligent Design, then I'll be forced to close it down.


Did I say he? OOOOOOPS I am realllly sorry.:scared0011:

By the way, thanks Nate for letting me try this.... i can assure you, an attack on Christians and Creationism or Intelligent Design is not, and NEVER will be my goal or intention.

Black Mamba
03-29-2009, 08:48 PM
It's ok, :laugh: I should have clarified my introduction when I first PM you. Lil D is my nickname on here, but Danelle is my name. :)

I'm going to sit back and read this thread as it forms. I only have an introductory backgroud on evolution and the moment are getting involved with genetics.

I got a question to ask though. What was the whole deal with Darwin and the Gallapogos island experiment? Was that the one where he was suppose to prove it was every man for themselves? Or was that another experiment? I get some of his stuff mixed up.

NateR
03-29-2009, 08:58 PM
In orther words, the human of today, is not the human of 200 years ago.


THis is true, just read the writings of America's Founding Fathers and you'll see that we're not nearly as intelligent as they were back then.:laugh:

Plus, scientists have discovered a computer created by the ancient Greeks, 2000 years ago, that predicted the phases of the moon and solar eclipses using an intricate system of gears and knobs.

Here's my scientific question, the big stumbling block for Evolution is the crossing over from one species to another. I'm not talking about the big stuff (that can only be described with ever more radical theories like Punctuated Equilibrium). I'm talking about the forks created when canines and cats supposedly split off into different species.

Actually let me back up and try to understand what science believes a species to be. When I took biology, we were told that species were generally determined by sexual compatibility (or lack thereof). There were prezygotic and postzygotic barriers that prevented different species from mixing together. This was back in 1994 and I guess I just want to know how much of that has changed in the last 15 years.

For those who aren't familiar with the terms, a prezygotic barrier is something that physically prevents an egg from being fertilized. It could be incompatible sexual organs (for instance, a bird is not going to be able to impregnate an elephant) or something that just prevents fertilization from occurring.

A postzygotic barrier, will allow the egg to be fertilized, but the embryo will either self-terminated or produce an offspring that is unable to reproduce (a mule is a cross between a donkey and a horse and, last I heard, mules cannot get pregnant or impregnate other animals).

So how much of science's understanding of what constitutes a species has changed? Has anyone ever actually observed an animal evolving into a new species? In other words, what new species have emerged in the world since we've been studying Evolution?

mscomc
03-29-2009, 09:02 PM
It's ok, :laugh: I should have clarified my introduction when I first PM you. Lil D is my nickname on here, but Danelle is my name. :)

I'm going to sit back and read this thread as it forms. I only have an introductory backgroud on evolution and the moment are getting involved with genetics.

I got a question to ask though. What was the whole deal with Darwin and the Gallapogos island experiment? Was that the one where he was suppose to prove it was every man for themselves? Or was that another experiment? I get some of his stuff mixed up.


OOOO no you see, I knew your name was Danelle because you told me. And i figured it was girls name because well it sounds like one, and you have a picture of female superhero whenever you post a thread, so that tipped me off :laugh: It it just that, I have been trying to remember everyones name, that I got confused, and well...... c'est la vie.:)


When darwin went to gallapogos islands he was going there to try and further his studies of comparative physiology. In essence, this is that start of Darwansim.......which led to his theory of natural selection, which does tie into the notion of everyman for himself..... to be quite honest also, my knowledge of darwain is not very good anymore. Modern evolutionary biology rejects most of his original ideas......these days we are more focussed on genes, which darwain knew nothing about.

mscomc
03-29-2009, 09:30 PM
Actually let me back up and try to understand what science believes a species to be. When I took biology, we were told that species were generally determined by sexual compatibility (or lack thereof). There were prezygotic and postzygotic barriers that prevented different species from mixing together. This was back in 1994 and I guess I just want to know how much of that has changed in the last 15 years.

For those who aren't familiar with the terms, a prezygotic barrier is something that physically prevents an egg from being fertilized. It could be incompatible sexual organs (for instance, a bird is not going to be able to impregnate an elephant) or something that just prevents fertilization from occurring.

A postzygotic barrier, will allow the egg to be fertilized, but the embryo will either self-terminated or produce an offspring that is unable to reproduce (a mule is a cross between a donkey and a horse and, last I heard, mules cannot get pregnant or impregnate other animals).

So how much of science's understanding of what constitutes a species has changed? Has anyone ever actually observed an animal evolving into a new species? In other words, what new species have emerged in the world since we've been studying Evolution?



Okie Dokie.... I accept your challenge Master Cheif:)

1)
Ok so, a species is just a unit of biological classification based on a heirachy called Taxa. There are 8 units of increasing specificity: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. The last 2 are the most important. For example, for us: Homo Sapiens....Homo is our genus and Sapeins is our species. And you are correct, a species is usually determined from its abiliity to procreate.

The primary barrier that you are talking about is the organisms have to have the same polyploidy , in other words, how many sets of homologous chromosomes do we have? As humans we have 23 pairs of chromosomes so we are dubbed 2n. and a 2n can breed with a 2n. One unique example is a mule, via a horse and a donkey.

In terms of evolution into a new species.... do you mean did anyone see something like a crocodile turn into a bird (which is beleive to have happened)? As far as I know, NO. But, evolution is happening.....the most prime example is bacteria and viruses. Bacteria and their ability to resist antibiotics is evolution, and who knows, maybe we are only in year 500 of a needed 1000000 years to evolve into something new. However, this is kinda scary..... the HIV virus....mutates thousdands of times a day. I heard from other faculty at my university, that the CDC has encountered a new HIV that can spread via AIR......that would make it a new species, the method of reproduction has changed....

NateR
03-29-2009, 09:50 PM
Okie Dokie.... I accept your challenge Master Cheif:)

1)
Ok so, a species is just a unit of biological classification based on a heirachy called Taxa. There are 8 units of increasing specificity: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. The last 2 are the most important. For example, for us: Homo Sapiens....Homo is our genus and Sapeins is our species. And you are correct, a species is usually determined from its abiliity to procreate.

The primary barrier that you are talking about is the organisms have to have the same polyploidy , in other words, how many sets of homologous chromosomes do we have? As humans we have 23 pairs of chromosomes so we are dubbed 2n. and a 2n can breed with a 2n. One unique example is a mule, via a horse and a donkey.

In terms of evolution into a new species.... do you mean did anyone see something like a crocodile turn into a bird (which is beleive to have happened)? As far as I know, NO. But, evolution is happening.....the most prime example is bacteria and viruses. Bacteria and their ability to resist antibiotics is evolution, and who knows, maybe we are only in year 500 of a needed 1000000 years to evolve into something new. However, this is kinda scary..... the HIV virus....mutates thousdands of times a day. I heard from other faculty at my university, that the CDC has encountered a new HIV that can spread via AIR......that would make it a new species, the method of reproduction has changed....

Yes, I've heard about bacteria and viruses, however, those are on a level of complexity far below humans, dogs, birds, even insects. I guess I'm thinking of complex life consisting of more than a single cell. What new species of mammal, bird, reptile, fish, etc. have emerged since Darwin?

If the answer is "none" or "we don't know", then it should be said that there is no observed or recorded evidence of new species being created by Evolutionary processes among complex life forms. Looking at a crocodile and a bird and imagining what MIGHT have happened IF they shared a common ancestor is nothing more than educated guesswork and is not true, empirical science.

Tyburn
03-29-2009, 09:57 PM
:ninja:

I have No problem, per ce with Evolution, that is GOD driven. I just dont know whether anything Prior to the Creational Event happened within Chronological time or not.

Creation as outlined in Genesis was a bout a single event in Chronological time. It was about seven days where GOD created everything, and did so perfectly created (i.e no evolution was necc)

However, just like with the effects of the Ressurection, effects of Genesis and creation worked both ways in time. Forward, and also backwards. This is how GOD can save ancient Israelites before Christs Chronological death.

Just like you do with creating a story board, you think of a Character, and when you think of that character they are fully formed. You then go back and write a History for them.

I refer to this "going back and writing a History" as backdated time. It brings a Chronological succession of events TO the Genesis creation point, in order that the world can continue to work under the rules of science which GOD created. Call it a scientific catch up.

What I dont know...is whether that time existed...or whether it simply appeared altogether, much like creation itself...or...if infact its working backwards, at the same rate we are working forwards...in which case...Man is still a mammal...I dont know the temporal laws that govern the earth when Time moves in a backward motion.

Not that anyone cares about the above...or is interested enough to entertain the ideal that the whole process is so much more complicated then either Gensis or Charles Darwin makes out.

But I'm pleased to tell you...it is logical :)

mscomc
03-29-2009, 10:08 PM
Yes, I've heard about bacteria and viruses, however, those are on a level of complexity far below humans, dogs, birds, even insects. I guess I'm thinking of complex life consisting of more than a single cell. What new species of mammal, bird, reptile, fish, etc. have emerged since Darwin?

If the answer is "none" or "we don't know", then it should be said that there is no observed or recorded evidence of new species being created by Evolutionary processes among complex life forms. Looking at a crocodile and a bird and imagining what MIGHT have happened IF they shared a common ancestor is nothing more than educated guesswork and is not true, empirical science.


Did you mean something like this (this is a basic example)? http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN0725076720070807

Or did you mean, from an organism that we already knew was there for sure for at least the last say 100 years (ie: a typical house cat) turn into something new? Because then I dont know, but I can look into it if you woud like.

Because, I agree that looking at WHAT MIGHT have happened is just guesswork and not empirical...but evolution takes millions of years. Darwains Ideas are only 120 years old, sooooo what about the possibility we are just in the infancy of an next evolutionary cycle, and maybe we wont see a new species until the next evolutionary cataclysm, like a: flood, a river drying up, molten eruption etc etc.



OOOOO i just want to varify once more.....Evolutionary biology is no where NEAR my actual speciality...im actually a biochemsitry specialist...I only know what I know because I had to take alot of evolutionary classes as an undergrad.

Tyburn
03-29-2009, 10:20 PM
OOOOO i just want to varify once more.....Evolutionary biology is no where NEAR my actual speciality...im actually a biochemsitry specialist...I only know what I know because I had to take alot of evolutionary classes as an undergrad.
:ninja: I took modules in Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Time and Philosophy of Science....amoung others :laugh:

mscomc
03-30-2009, 02:08 AM
Well, moving on to the next peice of evidence....... Not to say that it would not be good to continue talking about previous entries.

2) AT THE LEVEL OF THE GENE.

Ok so, Darwain and many scientists until the 70's could not study evolution at the level of the gene. It wasnt until Frederick Sanger discovered a method to seqeuence DNA (dideoxy seqeuncing), something he won a noble prize in chemistry for :)

After the human genome was seqeunced about 10 years ago, it was compared to other moropholically similar species, like apes for example. The results, there is between 98% sequence homology between our DNA and an Apes DNA. In other words, it is 98% the same.

Furthermore, more evidence comes from examining enzymes. As many of you probably know, DNA polymerase is the primary enzyme involved in DNA replication (it copies our DNA strands). The polymerae of E.coli is very similar to the polymerase of a human.

.....Both require a template strand and a primer site
......Both work in the 5' -----> 3' direction
.......Both have exonuclease activity
.........Both are very large, and about 200 kila Daltons
...........Both even look similar in the active site of the enzyme

I'll talk more about the endosymbiotic theory in the next thread.

NateR
03-30-2009, 02:14 AM
Did you mean something like this (this is a basic example)? http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN0725076720070807

That's just discovering a species we didn't know existed before. That happens all the time, especially with oceanographic research.

Or did you mean, from an organism that we already knew was there for sure for at least the last say 100 years (ie: a typical house cat) turn into something new? Because then I dont know, but I can look into it if you woud like.

That's what I was asking about. Do we know what genetically constitutes a house cat (for example) and have we been able to detect any additions of information to it's genetic code, via random mutations, that have caused it to make the jump into a new species?

From what I've studied, there has never been a recorded mutation that has actually added information to any organism's genetic code. Every observed mutation has been a loss of information and has either caused damage or death to the organism.

Because, I agree that looking at WHAT MIGHT have happened is just guesswork and not empirical...but evolution takes millions of years. Darwains Ideas are only 120 years old, sooooo what about the possibility we are just in the infancy of an next evolutionary cycle, and maybe we wont see a new species until the next evolutionary cataclysm, like a: flood, a river drying up, molten eruption etc etc.

Think about the logic behind your statement. You're basically admitting that there is no empirical evidence of Evolution and that there most likely never will be in our lifetimes. So, if that's the case, then why are we expected to believe there is any truth to Evolution at all?

I understand that it's what all the experts in the field claim happened, but you have to remember that it was experts in ship design who claimed that the Titanic was unsinkable.

OOOOO i just want to varify once more.....Evolutionary biology is no where NEAR my actual speciality...im actually a biochemsitry specialist...I only know what I know because I had to take alot of evolutionary classes as an undergrad.

I've been studying the flaws in Evolutionary theory for years now and my biggest problem with this theory is that it doesn't conform with the laws of nature that we can actually observe.

Primarily there is the second law of thermodynamics: entropy (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html). Meaning that the observed universe is in a steady state of decay and that the trend is for objects to go from order to disorder. Evolution runs completely contrary to what we actually observe about the universe. Evolution claims that cells and organisms get more orderly and more complex over time. That's simply not in line with what we observe in reality.

mscomc
03-30-2009, 02:36 AM
Oh, I absolutely agree. Those are some good points....but in regards to your explanation to 2nd law of thermodyamics (down below)

Primarily there is the second law of thermodynamics: entropy (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html). Meaning that the observed universe is in a steady state of decay and that the trend is for objects to go from order to disorder. Evolution runs completely contrary to what we actually observe about the universe. Evolution claims that cells and organisms get more orderly and more complex over time. That's simply not in line with what we observe in reality.

The bolded region is not entirely accuate. The second law of thermodyamics indicates that the entropy of system will increase in a non-equlibriated system which is Isolated. An isolated thermo system is one in which matter and energy cant enter and exit the system, a really good example is a coffee thermus. The mass (the coffee) cant leave the system, and energy (work in the form of heat) can leave due to insulating container. Of course, in real life, there is no such thing as a perfect isolated system (unless you mean the universe as a whole)...but they can act for long periods of time.

Bio systems on the other hand have been classified as OPEN systems. They are able to exchange work (in the form of heat) and matter. For example, radio waves are constantly moving in and out of you..with no obvious harm, the wavelength is to large, and you constantly exachange mass when you: eat, digest....(I think you know where im going with this).



How can we explain this?

NateR
03-30-2009, 03:02 AM
Bio systems on the other hand have been classified as OPEN systems. They are able to exchange work (in the form of heat) and matter. For example, radio waves are constantly moving in and out of you..with no obvious harm, the wavelength is to large, and you constantly exachange mass when you: eat, digest....(I think you know where im going with this).



How can we explain this?

Radio waves are essentially radiation. Any form of radiation shooting through the body acts like tiny sledgehammers crashing through the DNA in our cells. If the damage is minor, then it can be repaired quickly. If the damage is serious, then as long as there is one undamaged strand of DNA, the cell can be repaired, otherwise it dies.

Think about DNA like a dictionary, full of information. Now take that dictionary and shoot it several times with a gun. Those bullets are going to tear through that dictionary and do severe damage to the information inside. Now, if you have another copy of that dictionary, you would be able to replace the missing information with enough time by comparing the two books.

However, expecting waves of radiation tearing through our cells to somehow add information to our DNA would be like expecting to add words to the English language by shooting a dictionary.

mscomc
03-30-2009, 03:55 AM
Radio waves are essentially radiation. Any form of radiation shooting through the body acts like tiny sledgehammers crashing through the DNA in our cells. If the damage is minor, then it can be repaired quickly. If the damage is serious, then as long as there is one undamaged strand of DNA, the cell can be repaired, otherwise it dies.

Think about DNA like a dictionary, full of information. Now take that dictionary and shoot it several times with a gun. Those bullets are going to tear through that dictionary and do severe damage to the information inside. Now, if you have another copy of that dictionary, you would be able to replace the missing information with enough time by comparing the two books.

However, expecting waves of radiation tearing through our cells to somehow add information to our DNA would be like expecting to add words to the English language by shooting a dictionary.


Well, I was only reffering to my disagreement with your definition of entropy. I was not really talking about the effects of a radio wave on DNA. I was just using it as example because i thought your orginal definition of the second law was flawed. The part of the law you stated is true for ISOLATED systems, not closed or open .

BUT...adressing your new points.

I am also going to respectfully have to add some info to your analogy of DNA and Radio waves. True, radio waves are a type of energy defined by the electromagnetic spectrum, their wavelength is far lower then that of visible light so we cant see it, and it is not strong enough to disrupt the H-bonds and are stabilizing features of a DNA double helix.... GAMMA Rays (along with other ionizing radiation) on other hand can puncture 30 cm of lead and can casue major damage to the DNA structure.

Now I just want to say something, and please dont take me as arrogant, flashy or mean spritied: But I am doing my masters in bio-chemisty....I am fully aware of the repair machinery used in cell control, molecular regulation and other areas......I beleive you are mentioning that if a nucleotide base pair is damaged, the repiar machinery can use a homologous chromosome to repair the problem....Did you know this has an error rate of 1/ 10^9 nucleotides? This may sound small, but all it takes is one small mutation and that cell will now divide, and divide and divide via mitosis, the error rate is regardless of how "bad" the damage is. If there is 9 damaged nucleotide base pairs instead of one, now there is just a 0.0000001% chance of improper repair. If you want, I can really go in depth in regards to the repair machinery (maybe for another topic:) )

I also fully agree that you cannot add information to genome via ionizing radiation. Any change (benefical or not) comes from an impairment of a normal genomic pathway, so in a way you are loosing information.


Anways, to be quite honest I dont even realize what we are discussing anymore:laugh: There are many natural ways for other organisms to obtain new genetic infromation (actually adding info to your current genetic makeup). Maybe we can talk about those next?

Neezar
03-30-2009, 04:12 AM
Now I just want to say something, and please dont take me as arrogant, flashy or mean spritied: But I am doing my masters in bio-chemisty....I am fully aware of the repair machinery used in cell control, molecular regulation and other areas......I beleive you are mentioning that if a nucleotide base pair is damaged, the repiar machinery can use a homologous chromosome to repair the problem....Did you know this has an error rate of 1/ 10^9 nucleotides? This may sound small, but all it takes is one small mutation and that cell will now divide, and divide and divide via mitosis, the error rate is regardless of how "bad" the damage is. If there is 9 damaged nucleotide base pairs instead of one, now there is just a 0.0000001% chance of improper repair. If you want, I can really go in depth in regards to the repair machinery (maybe for another topic:) )



I'm a little confused. Are you saying that there is very little chance of an error or that it happens more often than people think?


:huh:

NateR
03-30-2009, 04:29 AM
There are many natural ways for other organisms to obtain new genetic infromation (actually adding info to your current genetic makeup). Maybe we can talk about those next?

Yes, I'd be interested to hear about that.

mscomc
03-30-2009, 11:19 AM
:) I'm a little confused. Are you saying that there is very little chance of an error or that it happens more often than people think?


:huh:


Well damage happens alot more then you think. There a tons of potential mutagens that you have probably come across and didnt know it. Certain bromide based compounds, radioactive waste that has been "dumped" in a region near you didnt know about, certain hexavalent substances in dumped in water supply, certain solvents etc etc

Nate was right, that the cell can repair this damage most of the time (99.99999999%). But the system is not fool proof, even if you can use a homologous chromosome to repair the damage...because there is always a possibility that you dont induce damage in the middle of mitotic division...now you have a higher chance for error. But nevertheless mutation is slow, and any proposed hypothesis with it as the sole means of any kind of evolution indicates that it would take BILLIONS of years to notice a very significant changen in an organism. What we dub as significant, can be subjective...hope that cleared it up:)

Take care.

mscomc
03-30-2009, 11:20 AM
Yes, I'd be interested to hear about that.

Sure :frantics: ...... I have to go to my lab today, but when I get back, ill shed some light on this.

Take care.

Neezar
03-30-2009, 01:15 PM
Well, I was only reffering to my disagreement with your definition of entropy. I was not really talking about the effects of a radio wave on DNA. I was just using it as example because i thought your orginal definition of the second law was flawed. The part of the law you stated is true for ISOLATED systems, not closed or open .

BUT...adressing your new points.

Now I just want to say something, and please dont take me as arrogant, flashy or mean spritied: But I am doing my masters in bio-chemisty....I am fully aware of the repair machinery used in cell control, molecular regulation and other areas......I beleive you are mentioning that if a nucleotide base pair is damaged, the repiar machinery can use a homologous chromosome to repair the problem....Did you know this has an error rate of 1/ 10^9 nucleotides? This may sound small, but all it takes is one small mutation and that cell will now divide, and divide and divide via mitosis, the error rate is regardless of how "bad" the damage is. If there is 9 damaged nucleotide base pairs instead of one, now there is just a 0.0000001% chance of improper repair. If you want, I can really go in depth in regards to the repair machinery (maybe for another topic:) )

I also fully agree that you cannot add information to genome via ionizing radiation. Any change (benefical or not) comes from an impairment of a normal genomic pathway, so in a way you are loosing information.




I was clarifying what you were trying to say because from what I read it sounded more like you were re-enforcing Nate's statement about entrophy instead of arguing the point. :laugh: Any change is an impairment and losing info. Therefore, to me that kinda equals entropy.

(note: I'm saying this with the basic idea that any change that is benefical is very rare and accidental. :unsure-1: )

Neezar
03-30-2009, 01:18 PM
:)


Well damage happens alot more then you think.

Oh, don't I know it! I am a nurse. I literally see it everyday!

mscomc
03-30-2009, 05:29 PM
Oh, don't I know it! I am a nurse. I literally see it everyday!


You are a nurse? Hey awsome, what kind of medicine do you practice? Maybe we can have discussions of funny experiences you have had....i have like 30 doctors in my family...they all tell me stuff :laugh:

Anyway, I think I now see where you and nate may be comming from. Nate orginally said that according to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of a system will increase over time, essentially more molecular "chaos" as it is reffered to as. And he is partially correct in that statement...... The entropy of a system will increase in this way, BUT ONLY IN AN ISOLATED Thermo System As I mentioned before, a thermo system that is isolated is one that cannot exchange work (usually in the form of heat) and matter (usually solid mass). Now, Nate is correct in saying that an evolved species is suppose to have evolved for the better in the sense that it is less "chaotic", and hes right, so this would seemingly go against the second law. However, Biological organisms have been classified (through many years of Bio-thermodynamics) to be Open thermo systems. An open system can exchange matter and energy readily (I just randomly gave radio waves as an example of energy), and thus order (or a decrease in entropy) is possible. This is one of the major arguments to counter against what many creationists (not trying to generalize here, sorry if it upsets anyone) say about the second law.

To further complicate things (sorry 'bout this :laugh: ). There is really no such thing as a perfect Isolated system, unless you are talking about the UNIVERSE as a whole...and many creationists would say if the Universe is an isolated system then therefore all process' should lead to an increase in entropy.... BUT,opponents of this would say... Entropy is a pathway independent energy function. It is defined mathematically as:

Entropychange = Entropyfinal - Entropy initial

In other words, it doesnt matter that what happens in between, as long as we end up with an eventual increase in entropy, then evolution is possible becasue the small decreases in entropy of a living oragnisms evolution would be small compared to the LARGE increases in entropy from other systems: like a stars nuclear fusion etc... Therfore the NET entropy of the entire system (our universe) can still be increasing....


Phewww, that was alot to right...hope I got that across. :)

I'll talk about some ways that organisms can naturally increase their genome size by adding more information to the existing information. Ill start with simple organims like bacteria and then I'll move my way up to humans :)

But now I need a snack , all this writing.

Oh Neezar, by the way, My name is MALCOM, nice to meet you.

Llamafighter
03-30-2009, 05:38 PM
*fart* :laugh:









I got nothing to contribute:unsure-1:

Tyburn
03-30-2009, 05:41 PM
*fart* :laugh:









I got nothing to contribute:unsure-1:
:sad: I know the feeling :unsure-1:

Neezar
03-30-2009, 05:42 PM
You are a nurse? Hey awsome, what kind of medicine do you practice? Maybe we can have discussions of funny experiences you have had....i have like 30 doctors in my family...they all tell me stuff :laugh:

Anyway, I think I now see where you and nate may be comming from. Nate orginally said that according to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of a system will increase over time, essentially more molecular "chaos" as it is reffered to as. And he is partially correct in that statement...... The entropy of a system will increase in this way, BUT ONLY IN AN ISOLATED Thermo System As I mentioned before, a thermo system that is isolated is one that cannot exchange work (usually in the form of heat) and matter (usually solid mass). Now, Nate is correct in saying that an evolved species is suppose to have evolved for the better in the sense that it is less "chaotic", and hes right, so this would seemingly go against the second law. However, Biological organisms have been classified (through many years of Bio-thermodynamics) to be Open thermo systems. An open system can exchange matter and energy readily (I just randomly gave radio waves as an example of energy), and thus order (or a decrease in entropy) is possible. This is one of the major arguments to counter against what many creationists (not trying to generalize here, sorry if it upsets anyone) say about the second law.

To further complicate things (sorry 'bout this :laugh: ). There is really no such thing as a perfect Isolated system, unless you are talking about the UNIVERSE as a whole...and many creationists would say if the Universe is an isolated system then therefore all process' such lead to an increase in entropy.... BUT,opponents of this would say... Entropy is a pathway independent energy function. It is defined mathematically as:

Entropychange = Entropyfinal - Entropy initial

In other words, it doesnt matter that what happens in between, as long as we end up with an eventual increase in entropy, then evolution is possible becasue the small decreases in entropy of a living oragnisms evolution would be small compared to the LARGE increases in entropy from other systems: like a stars nuclear fusion etc... Therfore the NET entropy of the entire system (our universe) can still be increasing....


Phewww, that was alot to right...hope I got that across. :)

I'll talk about some ways that organisms can naturally increase their genome size by adding more information to the existing information. Ill start with simple organims like bacteria and then I'll move my way up to humans :)

But now I need a snack , all this writing.

Oh Neezar, by the way, My name is MALCOM, nice to meet you.

Hey, Malcom. I'm Denise (Neesy or Neezar, whatever you prefer, lol).
I am a rookie RN in the Emergency Room. And as far as NET entropy....

I don't care how my entropy compares to a star's entropy. It is still entropy. :laugh: After all, with humans it really is all about me.

And to your comment 'evolution is possible' well, entropy is probable.

mscomc
03-30-2009, 05:50 PM
Hey, Malcom. I'm Denise (Neesy or Neezar, whatever you prefer, lol).
I am a rookie RN in the Emergency Room. And as far as NET entropy....

I don't care how my entropy compares to a star's entropy. It is still entropy. :laugh: After all, with humans it really is all about me.

And to your comment 'evolution is possible' well, entropy is probable.


Hey you practice emergency medicine? HA, coolio, two my uncles are ER attendings in philadelphia. Man I have heard some of ther weirdest things... and some tragic things. From what they tell me, the ER medical staff are some of the unsung heroes of medicine, especially the nurses:) with all they have to put up with.

Hey get this... my one uncle completed medical school here in Canada before doing is ER residency in the states. He told me, when he did his ER rotation, he saw 1 gunshot wound by a BB gun in the entire 3 months he was there. When he got to Philly, he saw 15 in his first week....Not to poke fun at gun violence (or the difference in countries, IM NOT SAYING CANADA IS BETTER THEN THE US)....but he told me you have be really on your toes the whole time. You guys have a really demanding job, and should really be commended for it :wink:

NateR
03-30-2009, 05:55 PM
Hey get this... my one uncle completed medical school here in Canada before doing is ER residency in the states. He told me, when he did his ER rotation, he saw 1 gunshot wound by a BB gun in the entire 3 months he was there. When he got to Philly, he saw 15 in his first week....Not to poke fun at gun violence (or the difference in countries, IM NOT SAYING CANADA IS BETTER THEN THE US)....but he told me you have be really on your toes the whole time. You guys have a really demanding job, and should really be commended for it :wink:

Gun violence in a big city is always going to be much higher than normal. It's still a pretty rare occurrence in most of the US rural areas (which is still a majority of the country).

mscomc
03-30-2009, 06:06 PM
Gun violence in a big city is always going to be much higher than normal. It's still a pretty rare occurrence in most of the US rural areas (which is still a majority of the country).


Oh I absolutely agree...

Oh one more thing, I'm going to be home a little late this afternoon (im actually just a break).... But dont worry Ill be sure to post some of that important information you and I talked about last night (new genetic information).

Take care.

mscomc
03-30-2009, 08:39 PM
Ok, some info I think people would like to hear (Nate Im looking in your directon :wink: ..hehe just kidding)

I'll start with examples of bacteria gaining/adding new genetic information then I'll talk about humans.

1) Bacteria

The first thing we need to realize is that, organisms dont have their genome altered simply from mutations. A mutation does not "ADD" more nucleotides to your existing Genome, it simply modifies one that you currently have, and that modification will likely have no effect because the altered nucleotide in the codon (a total of three nucleotides) still codes for the same amino acid, so the the protein that is coded by that gene, is intact.

But there are ways to add genetic info. The best example is bacteria, and a process called Bacterial Transformation. This is a process by which a bacteria can alter its genetic makeup by uptaking FOREIGN DNA. For example, suppose we are in a certain environment where E.Coli is very prevelant. There are times where certain cells may die from lysis, or even programmed cell death (called apoptosis). The DNA is now just floating around in surrounding solution. It is possible (and it happens millions of times a day), that another E.Coli can uptake this foreign DNA via mediated endocytosis through the cell wall and now the foreign DNA is in the cytoplasm of the new host. Becasue bacterial DNA is not bound by a Nucleus, it is very easy for the new DNA to incorporate itself into the hosts' current genome via a process called Transposition. So in other words, if the Hosts original DNA size was 100 kilo base pairs, and the fragment it picked up was 20 kilo base pairs, now our genome is 120 kilo base pairs.

What becomes an even greater questions is....what did that piece of DNA code for? does it even code for anything?

Here is one of the biggest problems with regards to antibiotic resistance. Genes can transpose this information to eachother when one cell dies, or they can do so via bacterial conjugation. This is where one Bacteria will copy parts of its genome and insert it into the receiver (host) via an organelle known as the Pilus. And once again, this new info can ADD itself into the exhisting hosts's genome. I give you the example of MRSA. MRAS is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Basically, this type of Staphylococcus aureus has found a way to resist Beta-Lactam antibiotics..... it is beleived that MRSA have "picked" up the gene that codes for Beta-lactamase....The enzyme that can destroy the beta-lactam antibiotics. Where did it come from? Having Beta-lactamase is not needed for Staphylococcus aureus[/] survival.... it would be like putting bullet proof armor all of one of us, its not needed, but it would help.....Its postulated that Staphylococcus aureus became conjugated with a dying bacteria (doesnt have to be from another Staphylococcus aureus) that coded for the Beta-lactamase Gene. As a result, the MRSA have had their genome increased and are considered by many (including I) to be an evolution.

I would also like to point out, that just because a dying or donating bacteria is giving parts, or all of its DNA, doesnt mean it will always get transposed into the host genome. It could very well get degraded in the cytosol via exonucleases, and then just disposed of. Think of it this way, if a couple has sex, will they always get pregnant?

While this does happen naturally (IN VERY LARGE NUMBERS).....it has also become HUGE for medical treatment via artifical means....For example, in labs (and I've done this a hundred times) we can insert genes that WE find important into a bacteria, and have the bacteria express the gene for us, and we can then collect the enzyme, purify it and sell it. THIS IS HOW WE NOW MAKE INSULIN.:) (I can go more in depth about this if people want).


Anyway, I am sure this is alot to read.... so I will wait until we discuss this a little first, and then I can move on to Humans...a different process alltogether:) Or I can skip right to it..... Let me know:wink:

Take care.

CAVEMAN
03-30-2009, 09:06 PM
A couple of questions:

I hear evolutionists talk about mutations all the time. And how things evolve because of those mutations. Well, evolving in theory is supposed to be for the better, right? But yet, I would like to know when a mutation within a human gene has ever been for the better? It has always been my understanding that mutations cause deformities in humans....or am I worng?

CAVEMAN
03-30-2009, 09:08 PM
Kind of ironic that a screen name like CAVEMAN is asking questions about evolution? :laugh:

bradwright
03-30-2009, 09:13 PM
A couple of questions:

I hear evolutionists talk about mutations all the time. And how things evolve because of those mutations. Well, evolving in theory is supposed to be for the better, right? But yet, I would like to know when a mutation within a human gene has ever been for the better? It has always been my understanding that mutations cause deformities in humans....or am I worng?
i'll get this one for you.....oh darn,there is somebody at the door,
I will try and get back to this later.:)

NateR
03-30-2009, 09:15 PM
Ok, some info I think people would like to hear (Nate Im looking in your directon :wink: ..hehe just kidding)

I'll start with examples of bacteria gaining/adding new genetic information then I'll talk about humans.

1) Bacteria

The first thing we need to realize is that, organisms dont have their genome altered simply from mutations. A mutation does not "ADD" more nucleotides to your existing Genome, it simply modifies one that you currently have, and that modification will likely have no effect because the altered nucleotide in the codon (a total of three nucleotides) still codes for the same amino acid, so the the protein that is coded by that gene, is intact.

But there are ways to add genetic info. The best example is bacteria, and a process called Bacterial Transformation. This is a process by which a bacteria can alter its genetic makeup by uptaking FOREIGN DNA. For example, suppose we are in a certain environment where E.Coli is very prevelant. There are times where certain cells may die from lysis, or even programmed cell death (called apoptosis). The DNA is now just floating around in surrounding solution. It is possible (and it happens millions of times a day), that another E.Coli can uptake this foreign DNA via mediated endocytosis through the cell wall and now the foreign DNA is in the cytoplasm of the new host. Becasue bacterial DNA is not bound by a Nucleus, it is very easy for the new DNA to incorporate itself into the hosts' current genome via a process called Transposition. So in other words, if the Hosts original DNA size was 100 kilo base pairs, and the fragment it picked up was 20 kilo base pairs, now our genome is 120 kilo base pairs.

What becomes an even greater questions is....what did that piece of DNA code for? does it even code for anything?

Here is one of the biggest problems with regards to antibiotic resistance. Genes can transpose this information to eachother when one cell dies, or they can do so via bacterial conjugation. This is where one Bacteria will copy parts of its genome and insert it into the receiver (host) via an organelle known as the Pilus. And once again, this new info can ADD itself into the exhisting hosts's genome. I give you the example of MRSA. MRAS is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Basically, this type of Staphylococcus aureus has found a way to resist Beta-Lactam antibiotics..... it is beleived that MRSA have "picked" up the gene that codes for Beta-lactamase....The enzyme that can destroy the beta-lactam antibiotics. Where did it come from? Having Beta-lactamase is not needed for Staphylococcus aureus[/] survival.... it would be like putting bullet proof armor all of one of us, its not needed, but it would help.....Its postulated that Staphylococcus aureus became conjugated with a dying bacteria (doesnt have to be from another Staphylococcus aureus) that coded for the Beta-lactamase Gene. As a result, the MRSA have had their genome increased and are considered by many (including I) to be an evolution.

I would also like to point out, that just because a dying or donating bacteria is giving parts, or all of its DNA, doesnt mean it will always get transposed into the host genome. It could very well get degraded in the cytosol via exonucleases, and then just disposed of. Think of it this way, if a couple has sex, will they always get pregnant?

While this does happen naturally (IN VERY LARGE NUMBERS).....it has also become HUGE for medical treatment via artifical means....For example, in labs (and I've done this a hundred times) we can insert genes that WE find important into a bacteria, and have the bacteria express the gene for us, and we can then collect the enzyme, purify it and sell it. THIS IS HOW WE NOW MAKE INSULIN.:) (I can go more in depth about this if people want).


Anyway, I am sure this is alot to read.... so I will wait until we discuss this a little first, and then I can move on to Humans...a different process alltogether:) Or I can skip right to it..... Let me know:wink:

Take care.

That's pretty interesting stuff, but it's not really creating new information, it's just assimilating additional, pre-existing information.

Anyways, I'm ready to move on to humans.:)

mscomc
03-30-2009, 11:24 PM
That's pretty interesting stuff, but it's not really creating new information, it's just assimilating additional, pre-existing information.

Anyways, I'm ready to move on to humans.:)

man, what do i have to do to impress ya?:laugh:

I can see what your saying....the info was already there, and it is just being transmitted to another bacteria.....but transformation can work between two different SPECIES of bacteria.....humans can't share their info with a lets say a chimp.

I guess for me, one bacteria un-knowingly but naturally giving a gene to another bacteria that my be of a different species that can code for something like: Antibiotic Resistance.....is like a Human getting a gene that makes our skin tough like a rhinos, and now we can defend bullets..:) But anyway......here come the HUMANS

mscomc
03-31-2009, 12:19 AM
2)

Ok so as many of you may know, in the entire Human genome, only about 2-3% of the DNA is gene-coding, in other words, it makes a protein.

Now the rest of genome, is filled with what we call "junk" DNA...things like Introns, intergenic DNA.....and lastly Restrotransposable Elements.. We call this stuff Junk DNA because we are still not to sure what they do exactly. We know that Introns are involved in things like splicing etc etc...but for the most part we are still in the dark. Now Retrotransposable Elements actually make up 45% of the human GENOME. And here is what they do....

The retrotransposon DNA is initially transcribed via RNA polymerase (the same enzyme for normal genes) and turns into an mRNA intermediate...That mRNA intermediate in itself is unqiue because withing the mRNA it also coded for a REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE. This enzyme will turn the mRNA back into DNA and then via an enzyme called TRANSPOSASE this new DNA is re-inserted back into the DNA in the Nucleus. So, if our genome had 1000 kilo base pairs to begin with, and the transposon was 100 kilo base pairs, now we have 1100 kilo base pairs. Barbara McClintock
won the Nobel prize in 1983 for discovering this.

Now, more importantly, is where does this insert, insert itself? It is right next to the gene from which it came, it is randomly inserted into another region of "junk" DNA or can it disrupt protein coding genes by causing a mutation?

The answer? All of the above are possible. So lets the take the most interesting one, inserting into a protein coding sequence. If you disrupt the gene order, this is a mutation, but now it is a mutation due to increased Genome size, and NOT something like Ionizing radiation. And, lets not forget, the transposon itself can become mutated before it even re-inserts itself, causing a "double" mutation if you will.

Soooo what does all this mumbo jumbo mean? What are the potential effects on Human metabolism?

Well lets go in a list:

1) It is beleived that a transposable elements may have inserted itself in the place that coded for Cellulose metabolism. Therefore, now we cant use Cellulose as a source of Carbs, BUT.....in place, we can now form Fiber in the G.I tract to help us push out feces...... This is may be why the appendix and cecum have NO physiological function anymore. Some may consider this an evolution ( I would)

2) The UCP's , or Uncoupling proteins are a type of mitochondrial protein that regulate the proton gradient during Oxidative Phosphorylation, the final step in the converson of glucose to make ATP----celluar energy. Now UCP3 has typically been linked to obesity (slow metabolsim) or fitness (very fast metabolsim). Traditionally, a single base mutation, like the one we are born with, or the one you get from environemnt like: Ionizing radiation, toxic waste, solvents etc etc, has been linked to a much slower metabolism, and a hard time metabolizing fat.

BUT......for some reason (we still dont know yet), certain retrotransposons have been found near the gene that codes for UCP3. And people with this new insertion, have been found to metabolize fat very easily....Im talking you can eat 5 big macs a day and not gain a pound....im sure we all know people like that. This would imply that this time, the insertion is acting as a promoting or enhancing region in the DNA to combatt fat. Because if you study the intricate details of Fat Metabolism at the molecular level, you would see that as humans, we are not very efficient when it comes to dealing with fat.

3)
Ok, now..one last example...and this time I'll use an example where the insert, actually put itself int he middle of a gene, and actually reduced the gene by 32 base pairs...so while adding more info the genome, we actually truncated a gene....BUT IT WORKED OUT FOR THE BETTER.

the HIV virus works by inserting its genetic information into you, and then using your replication machinery, it makes more HIV particles and the virus spreads and can cause AIDS. With this particular insertion, the insert caused a 32 base pair deletion in the gene that codes for the core-receptor protein CCR-5. HIV uses this to enter the cell, normally. But this re-insertion actually caused a defect in the CCR-5 that wont allow HIV to enter the cell, and now these people are HIV resistant. Some may call this a human evolutionary trait to fight HIV.


IN SUMMARY:
We are not sure why these transposons re-copy themselves and paste themselves back into the genome....and like I said we are still not sure about their function, we only discovered them 25 years ago. And we are not sure if they are made again in response to stressfull conditions. I just gave a couple examples that I know about. There could be potential effects on musco-skeletal function, bone density and structure etc etc. I gave metabolic examples because that what I know............. but nevertheless, I think it is all stuff to think about.


HOLY MOLY, that was alot to write... i need another snack :laugh:

Happy readings!!!!

Regards, Malcom.

NateR
03-31-2009, 01:46 AM
2)

Ok so as many of you may know, in the entire Human genome, only about 2-3% of the DNA is gene-coding, in other words, it makes a protein.

Now the rest of genome, is filled with what we call "junk" DNA...things like Introns, intergenic DNA.....and lastly Restrotransposable Elements.. We call this stuff Junk DNA because we are still not to sure what they do exactly. We know that Introns are involved in things like splicing etc etc...but for the most part we are still in the dark. Now Retrotransposable Elements actually make up 45% of the human GENOME. And here is what they do....

The retrotransposon DNA is initially transcribed via RNA polymerase (the same enzyme for normal genes) and turns into an mRNA intermediate...That mRNA intermediate in itself is unqiue because withing the mRNA it also coded for a REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE. This enzyme will turn the mRNA back into DNA and then via an enzyme called TRANSPOSASE this new DNA is re-inserted back into the DNA in the Nucleus. So, if our genome had 1000 kilo base pairs to begin with, and the transposon was 100 kilo base pairs, now we have 1100 kilo base pairs. Barbara McClintock
won the Nobel prize in 1983 for discovering this.

So you are saying that these Retrotransposable Elements are already in the junk DNA? So isn't that just essentially moving information from one section of "unused" DNA to a section of "functional" DNA?

If that's the case, then the information was already there, just in a different place.

This is may be why the appendix and cecum have NO physiological function anymore. Some may consider this an evolution ( I would)

Actually I've read that the idea that the human body contains non-functioning (or vestigial) organs is an outdated concept. Kind of like that "junk" DNA. They have a function, we just don't know what it is yet.

I do know that the appendix does appear to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths.

I've understood it like a fuse in an electrical circuit. The purpose of a fuse is to burn out and break the circuit. This is designed to happen when an electrical surge passes through the circuit. The fuse burns out and terminates the connection in order to prevent the electrical surge from damaging more critical electrical components. A circuit breaker performs the same function, but can be reset and reused. A fuse, like an appendix, is only good for one use, then it must be removed.

So the appendix is designed to catch an infection and thus contain it, before it can spread to more critical organs.

Some may call this a human evolutionary trait to fight HIV.

OR some may call it a fail safe built into the system by an intelligent designer.:wink: It all depends on your worldview.

IN SUMMARY:
We are not sure why these transposons re-copy themselves and paste themselves back into the genome....and like I said we are still not sure about their function, we only discovered them 25 years ago. And we are not sure if they are made again in response to stressfull conditions. I just gave a couple examples that I know about. There could be potential effects on musco-skeletal function, bone density and structure etc etc. I gave metabolic examples because that what I know............. but nevertheless, I think it is all stuff to think about.

Again, if I'm understanding this correctly, this is just a transfer of information from one part of the DNA strand to another, not necessarily generating new information from scratch. Which is what would be necessary for Evolution to occur.

mscomc
03-31-2009, 02:16 AM
So you are saying that these Retrotransposable Elements are already in the junk DNA? So isn't that just essentially moving information from one section of "unused" DNA to a section of "functional" DNA?

.

Not really......Im sorry this can be kind of hard to explain without talking to someone. The retrotransposale element may be in the Junk DNA, but it can re-insert itself into more junk DNA or into gene coding DNA. And if it does that, you now have a modified version of the Gene. Like with the three metabolic genes i listed earlier...... To me, this newly modified gene, is NEW...and therefore an evolution. Plus as I said, the element can mutate before it even inserts itself, so the elements is different then what was transcribed and on top of that it modifies the gene when it inserts itself. I know this is "moving info around", but it does Increase the genome size....your genome size of yesterday may not be the same as today because of it.

I think you and I have different views on what evolution means/is. From the way I was instructed, I see it as the a progression on things we already have...not just from scratch...I see it as, the DNA you have now are the building blocks for further modification, for the better... I see that modification as the evolution. A bacterias ability to resist antibiotics, i see that as an evolution. Our ability to now use Cellulose as a fiber to helps us excrete waste, i see that an an evolution. Our abillity to modify UCP3 proteins to better metabolize fat... i see that as an evolution of OUR SPECIES....but It may not be into a brand new species, but an evolution nontheless. Which I think we both agree on?

To make something brand new from scratch, is essentially the debate on how the supposed first single cell organism was able to produce a gene. How did it to do that? Which is the main flaw in fundamental cell theory...all cells come from pre-exhisting cells.....so where did the first cell come from?

Well there is some complicated chemistry that I have behind that, and It is a real SHOT IN THE DARK. I dont beleive it.

mscomc
03-31-2009, 02:30 AM
Anyway, I think we are coming to end of our debate on this topic, unless anyone else has stuff to add? I've pretty much said all i know on the topic.... It was really good talking about this with you Nate, I hope you feel the same way :wink: I hope we can have further discussions like this on othe topics!

In closing......

I would like to let everyone know, that even though I gave a perspective on where an Evolutionary Biologist may be coming from, I am not one.. Some of the things I discussed, I find very interesting, but I also attribute that to an intelligent designer...as nate very nicely put.

I do beleive evolution happens, But I beleive it can be supported by religion. And NOT the way darwanists claim. And whatever I said about thermodynamics, I beleive it 100%, and im CERTAIN, that God has an underlying reason for how all that works, we just dont fully understand it yet :)


Just a few things to leave you guys with in case any of you feel doubtful now about your faith...............

I have trained very intesively in the sciences for years now, and some of my peers mock me that even with all my knowledge...How can I beleive in God? I cant seem him! I just tell them, I cant see an Atom either, but I beleive it is there.

And remember this funny tid bit from physics. The gravitational pull on earth is 9.8 meters / second (squared) , If this pull was off by even 0.1m/s, then life on earth would not be thermodynamically perfect, and earth would be destructed, life could not exist, the solar system in complete dis-array and the universe could not be. I beleive the universe is too perfectly made to have been left to chance. :laugh: .

Until the next time,

Take care guys :laugh:

NateR
03-31-2009, 02:44 AM
I have trained very intesively in the sciences for years now, and some of my peers mock me that even with all my knowledge...How can I beleive in God? I cant seem him! I just tell them, I cant see an Atom either, but I beleive it is there.

And remember this funny tid bit from physics. The gravitational pull on earth is 9.8 meters / second (squared) , If this pull was off by even 0.1m/s, then life on earth would not be thermodynamically perfect, and earth would be destructed, life could not exist, the solar system in complete dis-array and the universe could not be. I beleive the universe is too perfectly made to have been left to chance. :laugh: .

Until the next time,

Take care guys :laugh:

Yes, I have a great love for science and this kind of thing is always fascinating to me. So I had a lot of fun learning some new things and trying to see how much I remembered from my college days. However, I do always have to remind myself that scientists are humans just like the rest of us and their preconceptions and worldviews will ALWAYS color their interpretations of the data.

Back in the 19th century, the prevailing notion in science was that blacks, asians and "mongoloids" were a lower species on the Evolutionary chart compared to aryans and caucasians. It was even to the point that children were being kidnapped from Africa to be displayed in zoos. They had plenty of evidence to support their claims, but it was merely their own prejudices showing through in the way they interpreted the data.

These days, there is a huge trend towards abolishing even the remotest possibility of GOD or any intelligent design. Thus, that prejudice is causing scientists to interpret evidence differently than they would if they were truly unbiased. I'm not trying to vilify scientists, if you are a human being you are biased, that's just human nature.

Anyways, there are a couple of books that you should check out, mscomc:

In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238467207&sr=1-1

Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe
http://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Complex-Uncommon-Universe/dp/0387952896/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238467257&sr=1-1

Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238467301&sr=1-3

The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/076790303X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

Neezar
03-31-2009, 11:02 AM
.

1) It is beleived that a transposable elements may have inserted itself in the place that coded for Cellulose metabolism. Therefore, now we cant use Cellulose as a source of Carbs, BUT.....in place, we can now form Fiber in the G.I tract to help us push out feces...... This is may be why the appendix and cecum have NO physiological function anymore. Some may consider this an evolution ( I would)

I believe they do have a function and we just don't know what it is yet.

2) The UCP's , or Uncoupling proteins are a type of mitochondrial protein that regulate the proton gradient during Oxidative Phosphorylation, the final step in the converson of glucose to make ATP----celluar energy. Now UCP3 has typically been linked to obesity (slow metabolsim) or fitness (very fast metabolsim). Traditionally, a single base mutation, like the one we are born with, or the one you get from environemnt like: Ionizing radiation, toxic waste, solvents etc etc, has been linked to a much slower metabolism, and a hard time metabolizing fat.

BUT......for some reason (we still dont know yet), certain retrotransposons have been found near the gene that codes for UCP3. And people with this new insertion, have been found to metabolize fat very easily....Im talking you can eat 5 big macs a day and not gain a pound....im sure we all know people like that. This would imply that this time, the insertion is acting as a promoting or enhancing region in the DNA to combatt fat. Because if you study the intricate details of Fat Metabolism at the molecular level, you would see that as humans, we are not very efficient when it comes to dealing with fat.



What I don't understand about this is that if the RT's change the actual gene code & thus the rate of metabolism then how does that explain when these people's metabolizism change due to outside factors such mental, emotional, or physical changes?

Neezar
03-31-2009, 11:08 AM
3)
Ok, now..one last example...and this time I'll use an example where the insert, actually put itself int he middle of a gene, and actually reduced the gene by 32 base pairs...so while adding more info the genome, we actually truncated a gene....BUT IT WORKED OUT FOR THE BETTER.

the HIV virus works by inserting its genetic information into you, and then using your replication machinery, it makes more HIV particles and the virus spreads and can cause AIDS. With this particular insertion, the insert caused a 32 base pair deletion in the gene that codes for the core-receptor protein CCR-5. HIV uses this to enter the cell, normally. But this re-insertion actually caused a defect in the CCR-5 that wont allow HIV to enter the cell, and now these people are HIV resistant. Some may call this a human evolutionary trait to fight HIV.



Is this a theory? I was taught that these people were born without that receptor due to damage of DNA (and even though beneficial it is still a defect). Are you saying that these folks had CCR-5 receptors at one time and the change occured during replication?

Neezar
03-31-2009, 11:11 AM
I have trained very intesively in the sciences for years now, and some of my peers mock me that even with all my knowledge...How can I beleive in God? I cant seem him! I just tell them, I cant see an Atom either, but I beleive it is there.



Yes, they deal with theory and possible. Things that can get proven wrong and often do. Yet, the one thing that they have never been able to disprove, they mock. :rolleyes:

mscomc
03-31-2009, 12:18 PM
Is this a theory? I was taught that these people were born without that receptor due to damage of DNA (and even though beneficial it is still a defect). Are you saying that these folks had CCR-5 receptors at one time and the change occured during replication?

Thats not 100% known. There are some with a 32 base pair deletion, and they are just born with it. However, there appears to be an increaseing number in northern europe, and when the DNA is sequenced these RT-elements seem to be present.. It could be a coincidence... but we are not sure.

Miss Foxy
03-31-2009, 02:33 PM
*fart* :laugh:









I got nothing to contribute:unsure-1:
LOL!! Me neither.. I guess I didnt pay attention in Science class!!! :frantics:

CAVEMAN
03-31-2009, 02:37 PM
A couple of questions:

I hear evolutionists talk about mutations all the time. And how things evolve because of those mutations. Well, evolving in theory is supposed to be for the better, right? But yet, I would like to know when a mutation within a human gene has ever been for the better? It has always been my understanding that mutations cause deformities in humans....or am I worng?

So.....no one ever answered my questions:sad: :huh: :blink: :laugh:

bradwright
03-31-2009, 04:31 PM
So.....no one ever answered my questions:sad: :huh: :blink: :laugh:
hey,sorry about that,i was just about too answer that as you might recall, when someone was at the door,i said i would get back to you but i forgot,sorry about that,
well here go's,
do mutations with in a human gene always cause deformities you ask?
well here is your answer,
oh man,the phone is ringing,i'll have to get back to this later,sorry about that.

NateR
03-31-2009, 04:47 PM
So.....no one ever answered my questions:sad: :huh: :blink: :laugh:

Well, mscomc did give us an example of a mutation in the DNA that creates a resistance to HIV. However, it's sounded more like taking an existing segment of "unused" DNA, adjusting/mutating it, then relocating it to an active section of the DNA strand. It's more of a relocation/revision of information, but it does add additional base pairs to the strand, thus making the strand more complex. So beneficial information is being added to the DNA.

However, we see in real life that coming up with a cure or treatment for a disease is far from a random, chaotic process. It takes many, many people working towards very specific, clearly-defined goals, for years and years on end. There might be an element of luck to the process, but it's development and application cannot be successfully implemented by accident.

For example, penicillin might have been discovered by accident; but it required the intelligence of Alexander Fleming to understand it's antibiotic properties and to apply that to curing bacterial infections.

So the question is, how do these unthinking globs of molecules come up with a resistance to a disease, through random mixing and matching, when it's taken intelligent scientists years to even understand how HIV/AIDS truly works?

I think this kind of mutation is just more evidence of GOD working behind the scenes.

CAVEMAN
03-31-2009, 08:59 PM
hey,sorry about that,i was just about too answer that as you might recall, when someone was at the door,i said i would get back to you but i forgot,sorry about that,
well here go's,
do mutations with in a human gene always cause deformities you ask?
well here is your answer,
oh man,the phone is ringing,i'll have to get back to this later,sorry about that.

Smarta$$! :laugh:

CAVEMAN
03-31-2009, 09:09 PM
Well, mscomc did give us an example of a mutation in the DNA that creates a resistance to HIV. However, it's sounded more like taking an existing segment of "unused" DNA, adjusting/mutating it, then relocating it to an active section of the DNA strand. It's more of a relocation/revision of information, but it does add additional base pairs to the strand, thus making the strand more complex. So beneficial information is being added to the DNA.

However, we see in real life that coming up with a cure or treatment for a disease is far from a random, chaotic process. It takes many, many people working towards very specific, clearly-defined goals, for years and years on end. There might be an element of luck to the process, but it's development and application cannot be successfully implemented by accident.

For example, penicillin might have been discovered by accident; but it required the intelligence of Alexander Fleming to understand it's antibiotic properties and to apply that to curing bacterial infections.

So the question is, how do these unthinking globs of molecules come up with a resistance to a disease, through random mixing and matching, when it's taken intelligent scientists years to even understand how HIV/AIDS truly works?

I think this kind of mutation is just more evidence of GOD working behind the scenes.

Thank you, Nate! A few months ago, I started reading the following book, which I need to finish, and remember the author saying that there has never been a mutation within a human gene that actually was for the betterment of the human. He said that mutations usually cause deformity or retardation. Downs syndrome for example. Check out link to book

http://normsplace.homestead.com/Ammunition.html

Neezar
03-31-2009, 09:20 PM
Thank you, Nate! A few months ago, I started reading the following book, which I need to finish, and remember the author saying that there has never been a mutation within a human gene that actually was for the betterment of the human. He said that mutations usually cause deformity or retardation. Downs syndrome for example. Check out link to book

http://normsplace.homestead.com/Ammunition.html

Well, the mutation he was talking about actually is a deformity or defect. The body's cell doesn't have the CCR5 receptor which is the only way that the HIV virus has of entering the cell. So, it is a defect that just happens to have a positive side effect.

I know that some people have been born with that defect but I have never heard of someone having the receptor and then something occuring in the DNA to stop producing it.