Questions about Evolution

[swansont]

Do you know what a descendant is? A descendant is not just a first generation offspring. It includes offspring thousands of generations later as well. So sorry, but apes can't produce goats, lions, tigers, bears or humans as descendants whether over millions of years or 9 months! The reason is very simple; because apes don't carry the DNA of the above animals any more than they carry human DNA. So we could never be a descendant of an ape. That's so obvious that even a child can understand it. But not scientists. In fact, in a documentary I just saw, scientists were surprised that they haven't found one ounce of neanderthal DNA in humans. Well duh. That's because only scientists don't understand the birds and the bees.

 

 

Nobody who understands basic evolution is claiming that humans are descendants of extant apes. Humans and modern apes share a common ancestor, which would also be classified as an ape.

[Knupfer]

I would like to point out to the casual reader here that Knupfers posts on evolution can be safely ignored. You won't be missing anything of importance or any accurate reflections of reality by doing so.

 

Sorry but that doesn't refute my post because anyone who knows basic biology knows what I said is correct. So all you've proven is that you can't admit you're wrong and have no desire to tell the truth...either that or you really don't understand basic biology.

[Phi for All]

Sorry but that doesn't refute my post because anyone who knows basic biology knows what I said is correct.

Trolling infraction issued.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm glad you brought this up because it actually disproves evolution. Bacteria become resistant to antibiotics because it's the job of a cell to survive. So they become more virulent bacteria. They do not become healthier cells. A cell can only do what the nucleus programs it to do. So a bacterial cell can only remain a bacterial cell and re-enforce the characteristics it already contains.

You have absolutely no evidence for this claim, whereas I could provide studies detailing which genes had to mutate for various resistances to appear.

 

The change for them to become "more virulent" makes them more likely to survive, and thus, healthier.

 

So bacterial cells do not mutate into healthy cells any more than a "lower primate" mutates into a superior primate. So your example proves my point and disproves evolution.

 

I never said they mutate into "healthy cells" per se. Only ones more fit for survival. If antibiotic resistance makes them more fit to survive, that mutation survives on.

 

Please answer these questions:

Do you deny that genes can mutate?

Do you deny that some mutations can be advantageous?

Do you deny that these traits would be passed on?

[Edtharan]

because anyone who knows basic biology

Basics of DNA:

 

There are 4 base pairs:

Adenine (A)

Thymine (T)

Gaunine (G)

Cytosine ©

 

These are combined into triplets (that is 3s) to form a condon like this:

AAT : Asparagine

AGC : Aspartic acid

CGT : Arginine

TTG : Phenylalanine

ATG : Start Codon

AUG : Start Codon

UAG : Stop Codon

UAA : Stop Codon

UGA : Stop Codon

 

Each codon relates to a specific Amino Acid (and several sequences can code for the same amino acid) or a control codon.

 

Those last 5 are interesting. These are control codons. That is, between a pair of Start and Stop codons, the sequence of codons form a gene.

 

A gene encodes a sequence of Amino Acids, through RNA and the Ribosome.

 

These sequences of amino acids are called Proteins

 

Proteins themselves, or the produces that the proteins catalyse are what make up the material of our bodies.

 

So changes to the DNA will translate to changes in the Amino acid produced, and they in turn cause change to the protein produced.

 

So yes, I have a basic understanding of biology.

 

Now there is redundancy in this system, this means that changes in one don't necessarily cause a change in the other if the initial change was within one of these redundancies.

 

For instance, in the above list "CGT" codes for Arginine. But then so does CGU, CGA and CGC. All of these code for Arginine.

 

So if a mutation occurred in the original CGT where by it changed to CGA, then it would still code for Arginine.

 

But, then if in some other generation, another mutation occurred that change the now CGA into CUA, it would code for a completely different Amino Acid (Leucine).

 

So DNA, through mutations, can change its function.

 

That change in function can then translate up through the system to change the organism.

 

In other words, what was once one organism can change into another.

 

And how does a human gene "accidentally' get into ape genes?

So there is no fundamental difference between Ape DNA and Human DNA, other than the sequence and number of Base Pairs.

 

A common word game is to take one word and change it into another word simply by changing one letter at a time with the constraint that each new word you make as you do this, must be a valid word.

 

Try it. Start with the word: LIVED

 

And change it into the word: DEATH

 

Now, I bet when you did it, you randomly changed letters until you got one that worked. Then you would do this until you got another, and another, and another until you end up with the final word.

 

Well this is similar to evolution, except it makes several copies and tries different letters with each one. The ones that produce valid words are kept and the ones that produce invalid words are discarded. Then the ones that produce a word that is more similar to the target word are allowed to repeat this process and the words, although valid, that are less similar to the target word are not allowed to continue.

 

Try it your self, you just need a piece of paper and a pencil.

 

1) Start with the word "LIVED"

 

2) Write down 20 variants of it selecting a random letter each time in the word and replacing it with a random letter from the alphabet.

 

3) Discard all of the words that are not valid words.

 

4) Look at the remaining words and see which are more similar to the target word: "DEATH" by counting the number of letters that are similar.

 

5) For the words that score highest on that last step, repeat steps 2, 3, and 4 with the new set of words until you reach the target word: "DEATH".

 

As I explained earlier, DNA can be thought of as "Letters", the thing is there is only 4 letters in the cell's "alphabet" compared to our 26 letters.

 

But what about adding or removing letters? Some genomes are shorter or longer than others.

 

Well Virus insert themselves into the DNA of their host organism, so a virus would be able to increase the size of an organism's DNA. Also, some times, a section of DNA gets repeated during the copying of the DNA. So these show that DNA can in fact increase in size.

 

With shrinking, errors can occur where by a section of DNA is accidentally cut out (we know that certain chemicals can actually do this, the name for them are called gene shears). This means that sections can be taken out of the DNA and a genome can shrink.

 

So if we can have DNA that can change, get longer and get smaller, then we could extend the analogy of that word game and change Step (2) to

 

2) Write down 20 variants of it by adding in in a new letter, removing a single letter or selecting a random letter each time in the word and replacing it with a random letter from the alphabet.

 

Using this new rule you can start from any single word in the English language and generate any other word. Or, if we are considering DNA, you can go from any one Genome to any other Genome.

 

Now remember the Rule (3) in the word game in which each word had to be a valid English word, well in evolution, each organism has to be a viable organism. It must be able to live and reproduce.

 

Rule (4) states that the Word must be similar to the target word. In evolution, this is the rule that organisms that are better suited to their environment find it easier to survive and find a mate (and so reproduce).

 

So, in our Word Game analogy, we find that Evolution has an exact match for the process that the rule describes.

 

If yo can accept that the word game works (and you can play it yourself easily to tet that calim), then the same should be possible for DNA.

 

But lets check this.

 

Find two lengths of DNA (a single gene will do as an example), and using the rules of the word game start with the first sequence and change it into the second.

 

You just have to remember that you have to discard sequences that don't produce a viable sequence (ie: there is no codons between a start and stop codon and that there are start and stop codons) and allow the sequences that are closest to the target sequence to continue.

 

Also, note that the two sequences don't have to be the same length as rule (2) was changed to allow for the fact that DNA can have additions and deletions to it. Also, the stop and start codons don't have to be at the very ends of the sequence but can occur at any point in the sequence.

 

For example:

With the sequence

ATA ATA AUG CGT AAT TTG UGA AAT ATA

The Start Codon is at position 3 and the stop codon is at position 7. This means that the actual coding bit is: CGT AAT TTG, and that it is still a viable sequence.

 

But that's it. Evolution is just the same as that Word Game. IF you can accept that those rules of that word game allow you to go from one word to another, then you also ahve to accept that those exact same rules when applied to the "letters" of DNA allow you to go from one organism to another.

 

You don't have to "simply buy anything scientists say, hook line, and sinker". Do the experiment your self.

 

Apply the same rules to sections of DNA and prove that one sequence of DNA can not be turned into another (or accept that they can if you are able to do so ).

 

I am going to turn your statement around: Why should I simply buy anything ANYBODY (including you) says, hook line, and sinker.

 

I have done these experiments. I have got my results and so I am not buying into anything just because someone says. Because of my own experiments I accept evolution only because the results of my experiments agree with evolution.

 

I have given you a simple experiment that you can do with a price of paper and a pencil so that you can check it your self. There is no excuse not to be able to do it, you don't need a complex lab. IF you don't have a piece of paper and a pencil, then use your computer and whatever word processor you have installed (you would at least have NotePad on a windows machine or some other text editor).

 

Do the experiment and show us that the process does not work as described. Prove to us that you can not, using the rules described in the Word game) that you can not go from one sequence of letters (be they DNA or English words) to another.

[lucaspa]

For instance, your point (3) about the evolution of the eye is incomplete. From what did the eye evolve in 364000 generations?

 

From a light sensitive protein collected in a spot on a unicellular organisms such as a paramecium. And the paramecium does indeed have such a spot and the protein in it eventally became the Pax gene that controls eye development in more complex eyes.

 

And really, an eye can be described in 3640-ish bits? You must be kidding. Describing an eye, with all its intricaties, its interactions with other subsystems, its chemical composition, etc. etc. would take millions, probably hundreds of millions of bits.

 

Not necessarily millions. Development makes the description simpler. However, my example was just one looking at very low selection rates and thus very low additions of information by the equation. If at any point the ratio of N:M decreased, there would be more information added at that generation.

 

Now look at the human genome, how many bits are needed for describing it (using the best available compression techniques available)? Still many billions of bits.

 

We have a lot more text written commenting on Shakespeare's plays than the length of those plays. The information within the genome can be much less than the information used to describe the genome.

 

Assume, that initially, appr. 3.5 billion years ago, there was no information or just a few tens of bits of information (e.g. simple organic molecules), then it would take zillions of years to evolve to human beings, much more than the universe exists now (appr. 14 billion years) and even more than earth exists and could sustain life after its initial very hot period (3.5 to 4 billion years).

 

Not so. The first step isn't evolution, it's chemistry. And chemistry can generate lots of information because the selection process involves lots of amino acids per protein and trillions of proteins per cell. In making a protein by thermal polymerization, not every amino acid can be next to every other amino acid. So there is information generated with each amino acid added to the growing protein. Now, once you have proteins made by dry heating amino acids, they will spontaneously form cells when water is added. Those cells actually have more information than modern cells.

 

It is remarkable that evolution has gone so fast.

 

Actually, the opposite is true. Recent studies have shown that natural selection can operate at rates up to 10,000 times faster than the average in the fossil record. The question is: why has evolution gone so slowly?

 

Actually, scientists are coming out in droves disclaiming the theory.

 

No, they are not. Creationists have been making this claim for decades but it never happens. If you do a PubMed search on "evolution" and play with how far you go back, you will see that the number of papers supporting evoution has been increasing over time (with a corresponding increasing number of authors).

 

But if people were capable of thinking for themselves they would understand why apes or monkeys don't breed elephants, lions, tigers, bears or humans as descendants

 

But evolution never stated this happened. Instead, evolution states that the population transforms over the course of generations such that the new population is a different species than the old. Also, if you understood evolution, you would realize that all the animals you mentioned are contemporary evolutionary cousins. They are not ancestor-descendent in any fashion. So no, they can't interchange from one to another anymore than you can be descended from your first cousin. Instead, both of you are descended from your granparents.

 

when scientists once again say; "We now know that what we once thought was true is not true."

 

You do realize that this is what happened to creationism? Creationism was once thought to be true but scientists falsified it. The data that falsified it is still there, so creationism will remain dead.