If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

from James R.

You idea of "full potential" is a pre-established one, probably tied up to your religion. Nature has no concept of "full potential". In nature, an organism is simple less or better adapted to its environment. What is good in one environment might well be bad in a different one, or if the environment changes.
………………………………….
This is, for the most part, true.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
from James R.

Do humans as they exist now operate to their "full potential"? We have fairly bad vision (compared to even a low-cost human-designed camera). We aren't very good at surviving extremes of temperature. We're not particularly athletic, compared to some other animals. We're not great swimmers. We aren't very strong. We're not as smart as we could be.

……………………….
I wish more people would think about these thing you mention, before they speak beyond our capabilities. In the first place, we do not use all that we know; secondly, we do not bother to know much of what is available to us. On our best day, we are reportedly using no more than ten percent of our brain, unless we are genius, but even so we have not even learned how to use our full potential in this regard. When we see those without arms and hands using their feet to play the piano, feed themselves, do artwork and so forth, we have to realize that our bodies are capable of far more that we keep in mind. If we listened as one who could not see, and observed as one who could not hear, we would have a more meaningful world about us, I think. If we walked as though the earth is our treasure, and took care of our things as though there would never be more, we would learn appreciation. If we ate only what we needed to keep ourselves healthy, and kept our habitats free of things that only encumber us, our minds would rejoice.

It takes little observation to note how few of us have much presence of mind, (much of the time), and how few are prepared for much anything, (most of the time). We must know that we are often over stimulated, under disciplined and starving for something real. So, no, Sir, I should think that we have not reached our full potential, and are some distance from it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
from James R.

It seems to me our "current condition" is not well-matched to any ideal "template". If we're made in God's image, then God can't be very impressive.
…………….
You know what, James R? I rather dislike such remarks from one of us…….who have trashed so much and done so little with what God has provided for us. Nothing personal, but why would someone as obviously well informed as yourself make such a comment? m
 
MGC said:
On our best day, we are reportedly using no more than ten percent of our brain, ...
I understand what you are getting at - however, we use 100% of our brain (that 10% thing isn't true). Even if you're not doing much of anything - other than watching some TV all day - your brain is being used by you - just not very productively.
 
Dave:

I hope you don't mind if I comment on your reply to Raithere as well as your reply to me (I hope Raithere doesn't mind my butting in either).

As far as I can see Human behaviour based on Historical records essentially hasn’t changed, obviously History records we have don’t go back to far. This really is the key area as to whether humans evolved or not, did all humans on the planet unleash the power of their imagination and start to talk at the same time?

You're right. Recorded history is a very recent development in evolutionary terms. Talking most likely developed gradually, perhaps from gesture signalling and grunts. Obviously, some ape-like ancestor didn't wake up one morning and start speaking Shakespearean English.

Finding Reptiles with feathers, snakes and whales with legs is interesting, but I look at it as a numbers game at this point, really was there enough of these found to classify them as a kind or a species?

It is not a question of numbers. Fossil animals are classified into species by looking at particular anatomical features.

Regardless, what does this tell us?

Well, for one thing, together they tell us that about 99% of all species which have existed on Earth since life began are now extinct. Particular animals which share features similar to two or more present-day species are also very suggestive that these present-day species probably branched off from a common ancestor similar to (or perhaps even identical to) the animals in question.

You talk about "whales with legs" and so on as if these animals were aberations from a norm (modern-day whales, say). But if you take a particular example of such an animal, say <i>ambulocetus</i>, it was neither a whale nor a land animal. It was a semi-aquatic animal with some features similar to modern-day whales, and some features similar to modern-day land animals of similar size. It was a unique and viable animal in its own right, very well adapted to its own environmental niche.

Were Whales once land animals that made it to the sea or vice versa? Are we confident or are we guessing?

Whales, as we know them, have always lived in the sea. However, that does not mean that if we trace their ancestry back far enough we will discover only aquatic ancestors. On the contrary, there is very good evidence to support the conclusion that present-day whales evolved from land mammals, along a line which included animals similar to (or perhaps identical with) <i>ambulocetus</i>.

We are not just guessing about this. There are many lines of evidence which point towards this conclusion, from taxonomy, from molecular biology, and so on.

When we look at the gene pool available to these animals is it not possible for this to occur simply by chance?

I don't understand your question.

I have no problem that animals have the potential to change to adapt better to their environment.

What kind of changes do you envisage? Are you talking here about changes in a particular individual animal, or evolutionary changes in a population of animals? Do you believe in both these things, or only one of them? Do you draw boundaries as to how much a genome can change over time, for example? If so, how do you do that?

Why are Humans special? Just look at mans achievements, why is this?

We give special attention to the things we're good at, like thinking. We're good at thinking primarily because we have big, complex brains. Does having a big brain make you special? Perhaps, but only in the same way as being able to run very fast makes a cheetah special.

Are we the pinnacle of Evolution?

There is no pinnacle of evolution, just as there is no such thing as "more evolved". Human beings are no "more evolved" than single-celled bacteria, which have been on Earth much longer than human beings have, and have therefore been subjected to a much longer period of evolution.

Why did these upright apes die out?

Probably due to competing for the same niches as more successful species, such as Homo sapiens.

Why do we observe the Universe? What makes us this different if we are supposedly so similar?

Our brains are a tad bigger. That's about it, really.

I think Science has gave Humanity so much that both adults and especially children are growing up believing everything it claims, because of it’s past record. Science may be able to answer everything in time, but I currently cannot accept all the theories it throws out, while many people seemingly can with passion.

Then you are in good company. Scientists themselves do not believe everything science claims. On the contrary, they are constantly asking questions and testing the body of knowledge which is science. If everybody accepted everything blindly, science would never progress. It's great strength is its ability to accommodate change.

Why did you think that the God you found would have to wait for Abiogenesis/Evolution?

Evolution is a very neat way to create a diversity of life, since it requires no outside intervention once set in motion. On the other hand, if I were a God, I probably wouldn't be so fond of the whole "nature red in tooth and claw" thing. If I were omnipotent, I imagine I would want all creatures to live rich and rewarding lives, rather than to live at the expense of other creatures. If I were a God, I don't think I'd force my Creation to operate on the basis of "survival of the fittest". In fact, why create animals which need to consume resources at all?

Have you seen an upright ape with a hammer in his hand lately?

No, but I've seen chimpanzees use similar tools to get food.

Ideas like we evolved from ape like animals (This is all I’m interested in as far as Evolution goes, for the time being). I do accept that there is evidence that does suggest that this is worth investigating, but at this point in time it is not conclusive and really is worthless, like pissing in the wind.

That's a harsh assessment, which I fear is clouded by certain prejudices.

However there are now discovery programs on mainstream TV for example that broadcast this theory as fact, and it’s not.

There is no doubt that evolution occurs. The evidence is overwhelming. Therefore, to argue that it is "just a theory" really is little more than a dishonest diversion.

How can you refer to it as a theory then twist it to a fact on your own accord?

All useful scientific statements are theories. Theories gather together many facts and explain how they link together into a coherent whole. I am not twisting anything in saying that evolution is a fact. All the evidence tells us that evolution occurs.
 
MGC:

MGC said:
On our best day, we are reportedly using no more than ten percent of our brain, unless we are genius, but even so we have not even learned how to use our full potential in this regard.

Actually, we use all of our brains, just not all at the same time. The oft-cited suggestion that "most people only ever use 10% of their brains" is an urban myth, with no basis in fact.

Me: It seems to me our "current condition" is not well-matched to any ideal "template". If we're made in God's image, then God can't be very impressive.

You: You know what, James R? I rather dislike such remarks from one of us…….who have trashed so much and done so little with what God has provided for us. Nothing personal, but why would someone as obviously well informed as yourself make such a comment?

Look at what I wrote again. <b>We</b> say we're made in God's image. I say that if that were true, then God wouldn't be very impressive. I think that if there is a God, then we're not made in His image. He's probably a lot more impressive than we are. Maybe we have a small part of what God is, but that's all. Does that make sense?
 
Hiya James,

You're right. Recorded history is a very recent development in evolutionary terms. Talking most likely developed gradually, perhaps from gesture signalling and grunts. Obviously, some ape-like ancestor didn't wake up one morning and start speaking Shakespearean English.

I had a bird once that talked; he only knew a few words we taught him. Can apes learn to talk do you think?

It is not a question of numbers. Fossil animals are classified into species by looking at particular anatomical features.

Can a species be recorded based on one fossil?

Well, for one thing, together they tell us that about 99% of all species which have existed on Earth since life began are now extinct. Particular animals which share features similar to two or more present-day species are also very suggestive that these present-day species probably branched off from a common ancestor similar to (or perhaps even identical to) the animals in question.

I’m not sure what you want me to say, if anything at all.

Whales, as we know them, have always lived in the sea. However, that does not mean that if we trace their ancestry back far enough we will discover only aquatic ancestors. On the contrary, there is very good evidence to support the conclusion that present-day whales evolved from land mammals, along a line which included animals similar to (or perhaps identical with) ambulocetus.

Ok. Does the evidence include transitional fossils? If so, have you got a reliable link?

We are not just guessing about this. There are many lines of evidence which point towards this conclusion, from taxonomy, from molecular biology, and so on.

But the conclusion is still theory right?

I don't understand your question.

I’m asking is it possible for a creature to appear which is different to any other creature in its category and it simply did not reproduce and died off, like a one off.

What kind of changes do you envisage? Are you talking here about changes in a particular individual animal, or evolutionary changes in a population of animals? Do you believe in both these things, or only one of them? Do you draw boundaries as to how much a genome can change over time, for example? If so, how do you do that?

I don’t envisage any to be honest.

We give special attention to the things we're good at, like thinking. We're good at thinking primarily because we have big, complex brains. Does having a big brain make you special? Perhaps, but only in the same way as being able to run very fast makes a cheetah special.

Having a reasonably big brain in the grand scheme of things does make us physically different, this is a fact.

Then you are in good company. Scientists themselves do not believe everything science claims. On the contrary, they are constantly asking questions and testing the body of knowledge which is science. If everybody accepted everything blindly, science would never progress. It's great strength is its ability to accommodate change.

I wasn’t knocking science just so you know.

In fact, why create animals which need to consume resources at all?

This is a good question, one I cannot answer.

No, but I've seen chimpanzees use similar tools to get food.

What tools are you speaking of?

That's a harsh assessment, which I fear is clouded by certain prejudices.

Your fear is unfounded.

There is no doubt that evolution occurs. The evidence is overwhelming. Therefore, to argue that it is "just a theory" really is little more than a dishonest diversion.

I’m not talking about a programme based on Evolution facts. I’m talking about a programme based on Evolution theories that explains to adults and children that we were once ape like animals, which is not a fact. Do you agree?

All useful scientific statements are theories. Theories gather together many facts and explain how they link together into a coherent whole. I am not twisting anything in saying that evolution is a fact. All the evidence tells us that evolution occurs.

Tell me, when is a fact not a fact?

Dave
 
James R said:
Flores:

You continue to preach your own ignorance. .


I can assure you that one ounce of my ignorance is way more effective than your total knowledge to the power 100.

James R said:
Here's some more information for you, which might help. I really urge you to read at least one book on evolution before you continue to try to argue about it. You'll look far less silly if you take that simple step. That's wrong. New genes are being created all the time. They arise in the crossing over process when new chromosomes are created from the gametes. They arise by the many processes of mutation..




I'm not concerned of how silly I may look, because in comparison to you, I can be Einstein anytime of the day, so please continue the correspondance, because you're making me look too damn good. Now, I urge you to read a little more on mutation and offer me ONE example of how mutation have resulted in a STABLE healthy gene. Mutated genes are either disasters waiting to happen or an actual disaster. Showing me one trend of a healthy mutation that can actually repair itself.

And by the way, to add to your ignorance, mutations means "failure of DNA to repair". I really hope so that you are in no position to ever teach, becauase you are one big ignorant idiot.

Here's the different types of mutations.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html#silent

Single-base substitutions
A single base, say an A, becomes replaced by another. Single base substitutions are also called point mutations. (If one purine [A or G] or pyrimidine [C or T] is replaced by the other, the substitution is called a transition. If a purine is replaced by a pyrimidine or vice-versa, the substitution is called a transversion.)

Missense mutations
With a missense mutation, the new nucleotide alters the codon so as to produce an altered amino acid in the protein product.


EXAMPLE: sickle-cell disease The replacement of A by T at the 17th nucleotide of the gene for the beta chain of hemoglobin changes the codon GAG (for glutamic acid) to GTG (which encodes valine). Thus the 6th amino acid in the chain becomes valine instead of glutamic acid.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Patient A with cystic fibrosis (scroll down).

Nonsense mutations
With a nonsense mutation, the new nucleotide changes a codon that specified an amino acid to one of the STOP codons (TAA, TAG, or TGA). Therefore, translation of the messenger RNA transcribed from this mutant gene will stop prematurely. The earlier in the gene that this occurs, the more truncated the protein product and the more likely that it will be unable to function.

EXAMPLE: Patient B
Here is a sampling of the more than 1000 different mutations that have been found in patients with cystic fibrosis. Each of these mutations occurs in a huge gene that encodes a protein (of 1480 amino acids) called the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR). The protein is responsible for transporting chloride ions out of cells. The gene encompasses over 6000 nucleotides spread over 27 exons on chromosome 7. The numbers in the mutation column represent the number of the nucleotides affected. Defects in the protein cause the various symptoms of the disease. Unlike sickle-cell disease, then, no single mutation is responsible for all cases of cystic fibrosis. People with cystic fibrosis inherit two mutant genes, but the mutations need not be the same.

In one patient with cystic fibrosis (Patient B), the substitution of a T for a C at nucleotide 1609 converted a glutamine codon (CAG) to a STOP codon (TAG). The protein produced by this patient had only the first 493 amino acids of the normal chain of 1480 and could not function.

Silent mutations
Most amino acids are encoded by several different codons. For example, if the third base in the TCT codon for serine is changed to any one of the other three bases, serine will still be encoded. Such mutations are said to be silent because they cause no change in their product and cannot be detected without sequencing the gene (or its mRNA).

Splice-site mutations
The removal of intron sequences, as pre-mRNA is being processed to form mRNA, must be done with great precision. Nucleotide signals at the splice sites guide the enzymatic machinery. If a mutation alters one of these signals, then the intron is not removed and remains as part of the final RNA molecule. The translation of its sequence alters the sequence of the protein product.

Insertions and Deletions
Extra base pairs may be added (insertions) or removed (deletions) from the DNA of a gene. The number can range from one to thousands.


Insertions and deletions involving one or two base pairs (or multiples thereof) can have devastating consequences to the gene because translation of the gene is "frameshifted". This figure shows how by shifting the reading frame one nucleotide to the right, the same sequence of nucleotides encodes a different sequence of amino acids. The mRNA is translated in new groups of three nucleotides and the protein specified by these new codons will be worthless. Scroll up to see two other examples (Patients C and D).

Frameshifts often create new STOP codons and thus generate nonsense mutations. Perhaps that is just as well as the protein would probably be too garbled anyway to be useful to the cell.

Insertions and deletions of three nucleotides or multiples of three may be less serious because they preserve the reading frame (see Patient E above).

However, a number of inherited human disorders are caused by the insertion of many copies of the same triplet of nucleotides. Huntington's disease and the fragile X syndrome are examples of such trinucleotide repeat diseases.

Fragile X Syndrome
Several disorders in humans are caused by the inheritance of genes that have undergone insertions of a stretch of identical codons repeated over and over. A locus on the human X chromosome contains such a stretch of nucleotides in which the triplet CGG is repeated (CGGCGGCGGCGG, etc.). The number of CGGs may be as few as 5 or as many as 50 without causing a harmful phenotype (these repeated nucleotides are in a noncoding region of the gene). Even 100 repeats usually cause no harm. However, these longer repeats have a tendency to grow longer still from one generation to the next (to as many as 4000 repeats).


This causes a constriction in the X chromosome, which makes it quite fragile. Males who inherit such a chromosome (only from their mothers, of course) show a number of harmful phenotypic effects including mental retardation. Females who inherit a fragile X (also from their mothers; males with the syndrome seldom become fathers) are only mildly affected.

This image shows the pattern of inheritance of the fragile X syndrome in one family. The number of times that the trinucleotide CGG is repeated is given under the symbols. The gene is on the X chromosome, so women (circles) have two copies of it; men (squares) have only one. People with a gene containing 80-90 repeats are normal (light red), but this gene is unstable, and the number of repeats can increase into the hundreds in their offspring. Males who inherit such an enlarged gene suffer from the syndrome (solid red squares). (Data from C. T. Caskey, et al.).

Huntington's Disease
In this disorder, the repeated trinucleotide is CAG, which adds a string of glutamines (Gln) to the encoded protein (called huntingtin). The abnormal protein interferes with synaptic transmission in parts of the brain and leads to apoptosis of these brain cells.
Duplications
Duplications are a doubling of a section of the genome. During meiosis, crossing over between sister chromatids that are out of alignment can produce one chromatid with an duplicated gene and the other (not shown) having two genes with deletions. In the case shown here, unequal crossing over created a second copy of a gene needed for the synthesis of the steroid hormone aldosterone.


However, this new gene carries inappropriate promoters at its 5' end (acquired from the 11-beta hydroxylase gene) that cause it to be expressed more strongly than the normal gene. The mutant gene is dominant: all members of one family (through four generations) who inherited at least one chromosome carrying this duplication suffered from high blood pressure and were prone to early death from stroke.

Gene duplication has occurred repeatedly during the evolution of eukaryotes. Genome analysis reveals many genes with similar sequences in a single organism. Presumably these paralogous genes have arisen by repeated duplication of an ancestral gene.

Such gene duplication can be beneficial.

Over time, one of the duplicates can acquire a new function.
But even while two paralogous genes are still similar in sequence and function, their existence provides redundancy ("belt and suspenders"). This may be a major reason why knocking out genes in yeast, "knockout mice", etc. so often has such a mild effect on the phenotype. The function of the knocked out gene can be taken over by a paralog.
Translocations
Translocations are the transfer of a piece of one chromosome to a nonhomologous chromosome. Translocations are often reciprocal; that is, the two nonhomologues swap segments.


Translocations can alter the phenotype is several ways:

the break may occur within a gene destroying its function
translocated genes may come under the influence of different promoters and enhancers so that their expression is altered. The translocations in Burkitt's lymphoma are an example.
the breakpoint may occur within a gene creating a hybrid gene. This may be transcribed and translated into a protein with an N-terminal of one normal cell protein coupled to the C-terminal of another. The Philadelphia chromosome found so often in the leukemic cells of patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) is the result of a translocation which produces a compound gene (bcr-abl).
Frequency of Mutations
Mutations are rare events.

This is surprising. Humans inherit 3 x 109 base pairs of DNA from each parent. Just considering single-base substitutions, this means that each cell has 6 billion (6 x 109) different base pairs that can be the target of a substitution.

Single-base substitutions are most apt to occur when DNA is being copied; for eukaryotes that means during S phase of the cell cycle.

No process is 100% accurate. Even the most highly skilled typist will introduce errors when copying a manuscript. So it is with DNA replication. Like a conscientious typist, the cell does proofread the accuracy of its copy. But, even so, errors slip through.

In humans and other mammals, uncorrected errors (= mutations) occur at the rate of about 1 in every 50 million (5 x 107) nucleotides added to the chain. (Not bad - I wish that I could type so accurately.) But with 6 x 109 base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations.

Should we be worried? Probably not.

Most (as much as 97%) of our DNA does not encode anything. This includes:
repetitive DNA like Alu elements and other so-called "junk" DNA But not all our "junk" DNA is junk. As more vertebrate genomes are sequenced, it turns out that they contain stretches of DNA that do not encode proteins or RNA but have none-the-less been remarkably conserved during vertebrate evolution. Some of these regions have accumulated fewer mutations than protein-encoding genes have. This suggests that these sequences are extremely important to the welfare of the organism, but why is as yet unknown.

noncoding DNA in introns and flanking structural genes. (However, mutations here can have an effect by altering the expression of the gene or interfering with correct splicing of the gene's mRNA.)
Even in coding regions, the existence of synonymous codons may result in the altered (mutated) gene still encoding the same amino acid in the protein.
How can we measure the frequency at which phenotype-altering mutations occur? In humans, it is not easy.
First we must be sure that the mutation is newly-arisen. (Some populations have high frequencies of a particular mutation, not because the gene is especially susceptible, but because it has been passed down through the generations from a early "founder". [Link to an example]).
Recessive mutations (most of them are) will not be seen except on the rare occasions that both parents contribute a mutation at the same locus to their child. Only by sequencing a recessive gene in a population sample can its rate of mutation be estimated.
This leaves us with estimating mutation frequencies for genes that are inherited as
autosomal dominants
X-linked recessives; that is, recessives on the X chromosome which will be expressed in males because they inherit only one X chromosome.
Some Examples (expressed as the frequency of mutations occurring at that locus in the gametes)
Autosomal dominants
Retinoblastoma
in the RB gene [Link]: about 8 per million (8 x 10-6)
Osteogenesis imperfecta
in one or the other of the two genes that encode Type I collagen [Link]: about 1 per 100,000 (10-5)
Inherited tendency to polyps (and later cancer) in the colon.
in a tumor suppressor gene (APC) [Link]: ~10-5
X-linked recessives
Hemophilia A [Link]
~3 x 10-5 (the Factor VIII gene)
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) [Link]
>8 x 10-5 (the dystrophin gene)
Why should the mutation frequency in the dystrophin gene be so much larger than most of the others? It's probably a matter of size. The dystrophin gene stretches over 2.3 x 106 base pairs of DNA. This is almost 0.1% of the entire human genome! Such a huge gene offers many possibilities for damage.
Males Contribute More Mutations Than Females
If most mutations occur during S phase of cell division, then males should be more at risk. This is because
only two dozen (24) or so mitotic divisions occur from the fertilized egg that starts a little girl's embryonic development and the setting aside of her future eggs (which is done long before she is even born).
The sperm of 30-year old man, in contrast, is the descendant of at least 400 mitotic divisions since the fertilized egg that formed him.
So,
fathers are more likely than mothers to transmit newly-formed mutations to their children. (But chromosomal aberrations, like aneuploidy, are more apt to arise in eggs than in sperm.)
The children of aged fathers suffer more genetic disorders than those of young fathers.
Actual measurements show that this phenomenon of "male bias" is not as bad as the numbers suggest. Possible reasons:
Perhaps many mutations (e.g., those caused by chemicals within the cell or by radiation) occur independently of DNA replication and thus would affect males and females equally.
Even in an older man, fresh sperm may come from precursor stem cells that have been held in "reserve" and are not the result of years of mitotic divisions.
Evolution may have led to mechanisms that enhance the accuracy of DNA repair in the precursors of sperm.
Somatic vs. Germline Mutations
The significance of mutations is profoundly influenced by the distinction between germline and soma. Mutations that occur in a somatic cell, in the bone marrow or liver for example, may

damage the cell
make the cell cancerous
kill the cell
Whatever the effect, the ultimate fate of that somatic mutation is to disappear when the cell in which it occurred, or its owner, dies.
Germline mutations, in contrast, will be found in every cell descended from the zygote to which that mutant gamete contributed. If an adult is successfully produced, every one of its cells will contain the mutation. Included among these will be the next generation of gametes, so if the owner is able to become a parent, that mutation will pass down to yet another generation.
 
James R said:
Look at what I wrote again. <b>We</b> say we're made in God's image. I say that if that were true, then God wouldn't be very impressive. I think that if there is a God, then we're not made in His image. He's probably a lot more impressive than we are. Maybe we have a small part of what God is, but that's all. Does that make sense?


As a moderator, I would expect you to use less of the blanket statements and more of the reasonable arguments. Islam never says that we are created in the image of god, so if you wish to make a correct statement start saying that the christian indoctrination implies that we are created in god's image. Don't lump all those that may think differently than you in one category.
 
Now, I urge you to read a little more on mutation and offer me ONE example of how mutation have resulted in a STABLE healthy gene.

Such gene duplication can be beneficial.

Over time, one of the duplicates can acquire a new function.
from your own cut and paste.



Also:
EXAMPLE: sickle-cell disease The replacement of A by T at the 17th nucleotide of the gene for the beta chain of hemoglobin changes the codon GAG (for glutamic acid) to GTG (which encodes valine). Thus the 6th amino acid in the chain becomes valine instead of glutamic acid.
While sickle-cell is considered a disease, it does have its own benifits. Being a victim of sickle-cell also makes you nearly immune to malaria. In areas of the world where malaria is a huge problem, having sickle-cell may mean your survival.
 
(Q) said:
How is it that you managed to have detected this so-called “miracle signature of creation” yet no one else has?


Actually, everyone else have detected the miracle of life, but they would rather ignore it or conceal it. I hear people all the time in the religion forum saying that they are seekers of the truth. The irony of the whole thing is that this is not about seeking the truth, it's about not concealing the truth. The truth is manifest.

It's so ironical that it's so sad. Here we are debating our tails of about creation verses evolution, yet life is created before our very eyes out of a simple sperm in a very short time. How can we say that we evolved from an ape, while we see ourselves created from a single sperm in few month? Why can't you accept that a sperm called Adam found a favorable environment by god and grew into a human??
 
river-wind said:
from your own cut and paste.
Such gene duplication can be beneficial.

You gotta love this out of context crap. Your out of context phrase didn't even mention mutation....only duplication????Where is the example that gene mutation is beneficial?? Give me one freakin example that a mutated gene can make us better?

And next time, show us the entire text.

Duplications
Duplications are a doubling of a section of the genome. During meiosis, crossing over between sister chromatids that are out of alignment can produce one chromatid with an duplicated gene and the other (not shown) having two genes with deletions. In the case shown here, unequal crossing over created a second copy of a gene needed for the synthesis of the steroid hormone aldosterone.


However, this new gene carries inappropriate promoters at its 5' end (acquired from the 11-beta hydroxylase gene) that cause it to be expressed more strongly than the normal gene. The mutant gene is dominant: all members of one family (through four generations) who inherited at least one chromosome carrying this duplication suffered from high blood pressure and were prone to early death from stroke.

Gene duplication has occurred repeatedly during the evolution of eukaryotes. Genome analysis reveals many genes with similar sequences in a single organism. Presumably these paralogous genes have arisen by repeated duplication of an ancestral gene.

Such gene duplication can be beneficial.

Over time, one of the duplicates can acquire a new function. (the new function is a highered blood pressure)
But even while two paralogous genes are still similar in sequence and function, their existence provides redundancy ("belt and suspenders"). This may be a major reason why knocking out genes in yeast, "knockout mice", etc. so often has such a mild effect on the phenotype. The function of the knocked out gene can be taken over by a paralog.
 
davewhite04 said:
I have no problem with the facts you mention as they don’t seem to contradict the Bible.
It depends upon how you interpret certain portions of the Bible literally or figuratively.

This really is the key area as to whether humans evolved or not, did all humans on the planet unleash the power of their imagination and start to talk at the same time?
It's hard to say. This also brings us back to which discoveries we consider human and which are apes. Australopithecus was capable of making stone knives and axes which demonstrates a capacity for imagination but it is unlikely that they could speak as their physiology was ape-like and they probably did not have the ability to produce more than hoots and grunts.

Finding Reptiles with feathers, snakes and whales with legs is interesting, but I look at it as a numbers game at this point, really was there enough of these found to classify them as a kind or a species?
Only one needs to be found, an individual does not exist alone. Classification of species is dependent upon the differences between one form and another. The classification of 'Kind' is meaningless.

Regardless, what does this tell us? Were Whales once land animals that made it to the sea or vice versa? Are we confident or are we guessing?
When we look at the changes over time we can see that the development was from the land to the sea. We can be pretty confident of this.

Think of a set of pictures depicting your growth from an infant to an adult. If someone had no idea of the growth of a human and they were all mixed up they might think these were all different individuals or that humans went through some bizarre process of development. But if there were placed in order from oldest to most recent it would be pretty easy to gain a clear idea of your development.

When we look at the gene pool available to these animals is it not possible for this to occur simply by chance?
Not really, for a couple of reasons. Massive mutations are very rare, the mutations aren't usually functional, and they don't typically survive past birth. A dog born with flippers and gills would drown on land even if they were functional. Successful mutations are small ones (webbed digits, a slightly flatter tail that pushes water more efficiently) that provide a small survival advantage.

Also the chance that any single individual will be fossilized is extraordinarily rare. The chances that a massively mutated individual survived and then happened to be fossilized would be extraordinarily unlikely. Beyond that you must consider that we're not talking about a single fossil but multiple ones indicating populations.

I have no problem that animals have the potential to change to adapt better to their environment.
Great! What about speciation? What about man?

It is an interesting ape, shame we haven’t found any live ones today really (I’m not being sarcastic).
It would be fascinating but what about my question? How and where do you make the distinction between ape and human? We have a series of fossils through time that seem to describe the evolution of strictly ape-like forms into more and more human-like forms. If man did not evolve this way what are we seeing here?

This is interesting. If you put a similar graph for equine mammals I’m sure you’ll get similar results.
Yes, you do.

Why are Humans special?
We're not really. We've simply evolved intelligence a bit further in a particular direction than any other species but there's nothing particularly outstanding about us. Apes can be taught sign language and can communicate well with it. The famous Koko can 'speak' 2000 words, understands syntax and grammar about as well as a three-year-old human, and has an I.Q. between 70 and 95. Chimps use 'natural' tools (they can't really make them). Birds and Dolphins have advanced linguistic abilities.

Just look at mans achievements, why is this? Are we the pinnacle of Evolution?
No, we've just evolved a couple of very interesting and important abilities; the ability to plan ahead and the ability to change our environment.

Why did these upright apes die out?
Who says they did? Perhaps they evolved into us. Or perhaps our ancestors we're able to out compete them because our ancestors (their cousins) we're just a little bit smarter or stronger.

Why do we observe the Universe? What makes us this different if we are supposedly so similar?
The difference is not that we observe the Universe and find patterns there. All creatures do that. The difference is the level of our ability to think abstractly and plan ahead.

I think Science has gave Humanity so much that both adults and especially children are growing up believing everything it claims, because of it’s past record. Science may be able to answer everything in time, but I currently cannot accept all the theories it throws out, while many people seemingly can with passion.
People tend to believe what they're told no matter what the source... just look at advertising. It's important to be critical and examine the evidence, examine the arguments, think about alternative explanations. But why stop only with science?

The Copernican model, this is what I have been taught since youth and have never questioned it as it makes sense to me. The Bible doesn’t say the Earth is the centre of the solar system btw.
Not directly, no. But there are some verses that must be interpreted figuratively rather than literally in order for the two to remain in agreement. At the time it was written, "The four corners of the Earth" was probably understood literally and Genesis clearly states that the Earth was created before the Sun. So which of the verses are literal and which are figurative? If historically Biblical literalism has given way to figurative interpretation in order to accommodate the findings of scientific discovery why is this topic any different?

I can see where you are coming from. Why did you think that the God you found would have to wait for Abiogenesis/Evolution?
Why are we born as infants from our mother's womb, why aren't we born fully grown from dust? Why did he wait for several billion years from the Big Bang before creating the Earth and then man? Why did he wait for eternity before creating anything; what was he doing since forever? I can't answer the questions about God... most of it makes no sense at all to me... More than that and we'll have to take it up in another thread. :)

~Raithere
 
Flores:
I don't think I took that quote out of context. A duplication is a type of mutation, and according to the site you referenced, "gene duplication can be beneficial.."

In otherwords, this is an example of a mutation that can be benificial to the organism. It's not always beneficial - it can also cause high blood pressure and stroke. Or not. Depends on the specific case.

You asked for a single case where mutation created a stable and healthy gene. You then provided us with such an example: duplication.

Or are you asking for a specific case study? You want a study where the person had Gene X, a amutation occured, and suddenly with Gene X.1 they are better off? something like that?
Problem there is, most people don't take note when things work properly. A majority of the medical research available will deal with *sick* people, so finding a beneficial mutation will be difficult - medical records are skewed toward sick individuals, not healthy ones.
Taking careful records of an individual's genome, with the hopes that maybe they will have a beneficial mutation at some point during their lifetime would be a quest with a very low chance of success.



As for sickle cell, a single substituation can create a protection from malaria. In areas with a high rate of malaria infection, that protection can be very valuable. The person still suffers from sickle-cell, but it is off-set by reducing the risk of malarial infection.
There's a beneficial, non-duplication mutation, present in Humans alive today.
 
Last edited:
Flores said:
It's so ironical that it's so sad. Here we are debating our tails of about creation verses evolution, yet life is created before our very eyes out of a simple sperm in a very short time. How can we say that we evolved from an ape, while we see ourselves created from a single sperm in few month?
But we're not 'created' from a sperm and an ova, sperm and ova are produced by the parents, they combine to form a zygote, and this zygote evolves into a human. There are no gaps where an act of 'creation' must occur to get from one point to the next; it's a continuous bio-chemical process that operates within purely natural means.

Why can't you accept that a sperm called Adam found a favorable environment by god and grew into a human??
Because this answer leaves too many facts unexplained.

~Raithere
 
I suffer from a 'mutation'...

skeleton.jpg


See the bone numbered 16? Well, that and all the corresponding would-be number 16 bones are missing in my feet. I don't have any those bones. It's not harmful, it doesn't make me walk awkwardly, and was only noticed during a routine medical. I've seen the x-rays, they're rather cool. I have 4 less bones than other people, and I was still top in my school at cross-country running :D However, this 'mutation' has not appeared in either of my children, and nor was it present in my parents.

I would call that a stable mutation Flores, wouldn't you?

If an adult is successfully produced, every one of its cells will contain the mutation. Included among these will be the next generation of gametes, so if the owner is able to become a parent, that mutation will pass down to yet another generation.

In this particular instance, the above quote seems wrong, but if it did- wouldn't that be evolution at work? What starts as mutation in one and then ends up inheritable in offspring is what evolution is. Ok, if it became inheritable, it would take fucking millennia to effect even a meager portion of humanity, but luckily this is a few billion year old planet - so life has been able to mutate and evolve.

So, over countless eons a would-be whale's bones mutate and evolve until such time where it is a sea living creature. Of course it doesn't lose all of it's former traits - such as it's need to still come up to breathe air, vestigal remains such as leg bones and so on.

Now.. I end up moving to some secluded island, where only 100 humans live. I have children who carry this mutation and pass it on. Eventually the entire population of that island would all be missing the (16) bones. Eventually you'd go over there, and notice that all of these people are different. Sure, it might be a minor thing after such short time - but it all comes down to evolution.
 
Dave:

I had a bird once that talked; he only knew a few words we taught him. Can apes learn to talk do you think?

They can learn sign language to some extent. They lack the vocal apparatus for human-like speech.

Can a species be recorded based on one fossil?

Yes.

Ok. Does the evidence [for whale evolution] include transitional fossils? If so, have you got a reliable link?

See the links provided by other people above. There are about 8 or 9 known transitional fossil species between ambulocetus and modern whales.

But the conclusion is still theory right?

I think at this stage you'll need to define the words "theory" and "fact" for me. Then I will be able to tell you in your own terms which evolution is. As I said earlier, all useful scientific statements are theories.

I’m asking is it possible for a creature to appear which is different to any other creature in its category and it simply did not reproduce and died off, like a one off.

Do you have any relatives who have died without having children (e.g. an aunt or uncle)? If so, then there you have an example of a creature different to any other creature which died without reproducing. As to the matter of "categories", you need to be more specific as to what you mean by that.

Having a reasonably big brain in the grand scheme of things does make us physically different, this is a fact.

Yes, and a giraffe's long neck makes it physically different in the grand scheme of things, too. So what?

I’m not talking about a programme based on Evolution facts. I’m talking about a programme based on Evolution theories that explains to adults and children that we were once ape like animals, which is not a fact. Do you agree?

When you say "we were once ape like animals", what exactly do you mean? Nobody alive today was ever an ape like animal, except to the extent that all humans are ape like animals. Evidence tells us that humans share a common ancestor with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas etc.). That evidence is factual. You seem to disagree with this. On what basis, may I ask?

Tell me, when is a fact not a fact?

Define "fact" for me, and you'll have your answer.
 
Flores:

I can assure you that one ounce of my ignorance is way more effective than your total knowledge to the power 100.

Obviously not where evolution and biology is concerned.

I'm not concerned of how silly I may look, because in comparison to you, I can be Einstein anytime of the day, so please continue the correspondance, because you're making me look too damn good.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Flores. Your rambling, incoherent posts cut-and-pasted from other sources speak for themselves.

Now, I urge you to read a little more on mutation and offer me ONE example of how mutation have resulted in a STABLE healthy gene. Mutated genes are either disasters waiting to happen or an actual disaster. Showing me one trend of a healthy mutation that can actually repair itself.

You misunderstand what a mutation is. Your conceptualisation of a "mutant" is some hideously deformed creature. You probably got this idea from TV and movies. In fact, you yourself have mutations in your genes, yet I imagine you are stable and healthy enough.

And by the way, to add to your ignorance, mutations means "failure of DNA to repair".

No, that's not at all what it means. Didn't you even read your own cut-and-paste?

I really hope so that you are in no position to ever teach, becauase you are one big ignorant idiot.

The <i>ad hominem</i> attack is unbecoming, Flores. I'm sure you're feeling a little threatened and backed up against the wall due to your total lack of knowledge here, so I'll forgive you. It is a common tactic to attack the messenger when you get bad news.

The remainder of your post was a cut-and-paste. I'll extract a few highlights which you obviously didn't bother reading, or failed to understand.

[Silent] mutations are said to be silent because they cause no change in their product and cannot be detected without sequencing the gene (or its mRNA).

...

Insertions and deletions of three nucleotides or multiples of three may be less serious because they preserve the reading frame ...

A locus on the human X chromosome contains such a stretch of nucleotides in which the triplet CGG is repeated (CGGCGGCGGCGG, etc.). The number of CGGs may be as few as 5 or as many as 50 without causing a harmful phenotype (these repeated nucleotides are in a noncoding region of the gene). Even 100 repeats usually cause no harm. However, these longer repeats have a tendency to grow longer still from one generation to the next (to as many as 4000 repeats).

...

Gene duplication has occurred repeatedly during the evolution of eukaryotes. Genome analysis reveals many genes with similar sequences in a single organism. Presumably these paralogous genes have arisen by repeated duplication of an ancestral gene.

Such gene duplication can be beneficial.

...

Over time, one of the duplicates can acquire a new function.
But even while two paralogous genes are still similar in sequence and function, their existence provides redundancy ("belt and suspenders"). This may be a major reason why knocking out genes in yeast, "knockout mice", etc. so often has such a mild effect on the phenotype. The function of the knocked out gene can be taken over by a paralog.

...

No process is 100% accurate. Even the most highly skilled typist will introduce errors when copying a manuscript. So it is with DNA replication. Like a conscientious typist, the cell does proofread the accuracy of its copy. But, even so, errors slip through.

In humans and other mammals, uncorrected errors (= mutations) occur at the rate of about 1 in every 50 million (5 x 107) nucleotides added to the chain. (Not bad - I wish that I could type so accurately.) But with 6 x 109 base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations.

Should we be worried? Probably not.

Most (as much as 97%) of our DNA does not encode anything. This includes:
repetitive DNA like Alu elements and other so-called "junk" DNA But not all our "junk" DNA is junk. As more vertebrate genomes are sequenced, it turns out that they contain stretches of DNA that do not encode proteins or RNA but have none-the-less been remarkably conserved during vertebrate evolution. Some of these regions have accumulated fewer mutations than protein-encoding genes have. This suggests that these sequences are extremely important to the welfare of the organism, but why is as yet unknown.

...

Recessive mutations (most of them are) will not be seen except on the rare occasions that both parents contribute a mutation at the same locus to their child. Only by sequencing a recessive gene in a population sample can its rate of mutation be estimated.

Evolution may have led to mechanisms that enhance the accuracy of DNA repair in the precursors of sperm.

...

The significance of mutations is profoundly influenced by the distinction between germline and soma. Mutations that occur in a somatic cell, in the bone marrow or liver for example, may

damage the cell
make the cell cancerous
kill the cell
Whatever the effect, the ultimate fate of that somatic mutation is to disappear when the cell in which it occurred, or its owner, dies.
Germline mutations, in contrast, will be found in every cell descended from the zygote to which that mutant gamete contributed. If an adult is successfully produced, every one of its cells will contain the mutation. Included among these will be the next generation of gametes, so if the owner is able to become a parent, that mutation will pass down to yet another generation.

Note the points which say that mutations are not always harmful. In fact, they are often neutral, and can be beneficial.

As a moderator, I would expect you to use less of the blanket statements and more of the reasonable arguments. Islam never says that we are created in the image of god, so if you wish to make a correct statement start saying that the christian indoctrination implies that we are created in god's image. Don't lump all those that may think differently than you in one category.

I didn't. I qualified my statements appropriately.

Actually, everyone else have detected the miracle of life, but they would rather ignore it or conceal it.

The miracle of life is abundantly evident in our scientific understanding of life. Evolution is a marvellous process which has produced great diversity.

I hear people all the time in the religion forum saying that they are seekers of the truth. The irony of the whole thing is that this is not about seeking the truth, it's about not concealing the truth. The truth is manifest.

Indeed it is. You need only to be willing to learn.

It's so ironical that it's so sad. Here we are debating our tails of about creation verses evolution, yet life is created before our very eyes out of a simple sperm in a very short time.

Life grows from a sperm and ovum. It isn't created there. Both the sperm and ovum are alive before they join.

How can we say that we evolved from an ape, while we see ourselves created from a single sperm in few month?

All the information required to make a human being is already present in the zygote after conception. It is contained in genetic material which is subject to the processes of evolution. Individual creatures are, from before their birth, subjected to processes of natural selection.
 
James R said:
Evidence tells us that humans share a common ancestor with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas etc.). That evidence is factual. You seem to disagree with this. On what basis, may I ask?
May i ask what evidence other than derived one from genetical & anatomical comparision.? is there any direct evidence like the 'missing link'.?! that is pretty the core issue of this debate between 2 parties. How factual that evidence is also part of this issue. Perhaps you might elaborate a bit.
 
James R: Is it not true also that our dna is similar to that of a banana? This is a real question; I am not trying to be smart, okay? Here is something I think about: Science just a short time ago declared that they have now proven that animals have feelings.
I could have told them this when I was five years old. When this ape-thing started, scientist were not saying much about other species being intelligent. While realizing that one can read anything, and none may be true, I have read that cats have a very large vocabulary, that birds are far more intelligen that one ever thought; and of course all the hoop tee do about dolphins and whales most specifically being able to communicate with man. Is it not just possible that this ape to man thing is more supposition than fact. It is called Darwin's theory, but related as a fact proven by science. Not that it matters to me how this body evolved; this slipery subject has affected by faith none, and I wonder why folks get so excited about it. Believing or not believing it will not change the truth. Yet, it does disturb me a bit that this theory is held in such high regard with this missing link still missing. PMT
 
P. M. Thorne said:
Science just a short time ago declared that they have now proven that animals have feelings.

Mr science doesn't exist. Science is a community. You would have to translate this with ' the majority in the scientific community thought that...blabla.'

you were not alone...
 
Back
Top