[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Question for evolutionists (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/12/2004 12:39:55 AM EDT
|
I don't want this thread to stray too far from the topic please... My question is, how long do you think it took for man to evlolve from, well basically nothing to now. How often do you think DNA was mutated/combined/"selected" etc (i.e. a small beneficial change in DNA occurred once a day, once a week, etc.). Keep in mind this would be limited to how often a certain organism reproduced, but would go faster with a larger population. How many base pairs of DNA do you think were modified in each little 'step' of evolution. Feel free to ignore all branches of the evolutionary tree except the one that lead to humans. |
|
Quoted: I don't want this thread to stray too far from the topic please... My question is, how long do you think it took for man to evlolve from, well basically nothing to now. How often do you think DNA was mutated/combined/"selected" etc (i.e. a small beneficial change in DNA occurred once a day, once a week, etc.). Keep in mind this would be limited to how often a certain organism reproduced, but would go faster with a larger population. How many base pairs of DNA do you think were modified in each little 'step' of evolution. Feel free to ignore all branches of the evolutionary tree except the one that lead to humans. Using the term "evolutionist" is wrong-headed. You don't call someone that accepts the reality of electromagnetic forces an "electromagnetist." If you want to know the evolutionary chain that wound up with humanity, do a web search or, better yet, buy a book. It will give you much greater and more complete detail than anyone could in a message board post. |
|
Quoted: A little off topic but related: How many mutations without reproductive organs occured and died after the first geneneration before a high order organism evolved with reproductive organs to move on to the second generation? Kent Kind of a nonsensical question. Just because something has a mutation doesn't mean it will be born without reproductive organs, and also some organisms don't have reproductive organs and reproduce via cell division. |
|
Quoted: A little off topic but related: How many mutations without reproductive organs occured and died after the first geneneration before a high order organism evolved with reproductive organs to move on to the second generation? Kent Hey, I thought The Highlander was a work of fiction... [:E] |
|
I agree with Rikwriter...no one can explain evolution in a few posts! You need a class or a book. And the DNA doesn't change every day, it doesn't work like that. It works thru natural selection, ie survival of the fittest. Think of it this way. My family clan has blond hair and we are very strong. Your clan are black haired and weak. We both need food so I kick your weak ass, kill you and take your food. As a result all kids from that point on will have blond hair since all the black haired people are dead. Time goes on...my clan doesn't change much because we are strong...but stupid. Years later we meet a brown haired clan that is also weak. They have food and we are hungry again. SO we attack them. But they are smart and have spears(AR15's) and defend them sleves well. We can't defeat them so we learn to live in peace. As a result there are now so kids that have brown hair that are smart and some blonds that are dumb and blonds that are smart and so forth. Basically the DNA of the two clans now mixed and created something slightly differant. This new improved human is now better equiped to handle the world. This continues on over a period of 100,000 of years. ANd it occurs with all living things. SOme live on while others die of due to external situations. And that is Natural Selection at work. I hope this helps. SGtar15 |
|
Quoted: My question is, how long do you think it took for man to evlolve from, well basically nothing to now. Approx 3.5 billion years How often do you think DNA was mutated/combined/"selected" etc (i.e. a small beneficial change in DNA occurred once a day, once a week, etc.). Keep in mind this would be limited to how often a certain organism reproduced, but would go faster with a larger population. Mutated? With just about each new organsim there is some mutation in the DNA. Probably less so with bacteria given their limited amount of DNA but they also replicate at a much faster rate. Combined? Not sure what you mean but DNA is exchanged between bacteria via conjugation, even between different species sometimes. DNA is recombined everytime via sexual reproduction. Selection? Nature selects for an advantage. Ongoing process over billions of years but humans have put this process into reverse. How many base pairs of DNA do you think were modified in each little 'step' of evolution. That depends. Probably a small number most times but occassionally greater changes occur. Eveolution is not unidirectional in this regard. Most mutations are probably bad, and only a few result in a positive change. The rest are of no consequence. The bad ones get weeded out. All that matters from a natural selection standpoint is what gives a given creature a reproductive advantage. Feel free to ignore all branches of the evolutionary tree except the one that lead to humans. Pretyy hard to do given the way that you have phrased your questions but hominids ahave been here for only several million years. Dinosaurs were destroyed largely, 65 million years ago, and natural selection can come like a diamond cutter or a sledge hammer with 5 great extinctions in the past, the last being the asteroid strike that led to the extinciton of the dinosaurs. |
|
Quoted: I agree with Rikwriter...no one can explain evolution in a few posts! You need a class or a book. And the DNA doesn't change every day, it doesn't work like that. It works thru natural selection, ie survival of the fittest. Think of it this way. My family clan has blond hair and we are very strong. Your clan are black haired and weak. We both need food so I kick your weak ass, kill you and take your food. As a result all kids from that point on will have blond hair since all the black haired people are dead. Time goes on...my clan doesn't change much because we are strong...but stupid. Years later we meet a brown haired clan that is also weak. They have food and we are hungry again. SO we attack them. But they are smart and have spears(AR15's) and defend them sleves well. We can't defeat them so we learn to live in peace. As a result there are now so kids that have brown hair that are smart and some blonds that are dumb and blonds that are smart and so forth. Basically the DNA of the two clans now mixed and created something slightly differant. This new improved human is now better equiped to handle the world. This continues on over a period of 100,000 of years. ANd it occurs with all living things. SOme live on while others die of due to external situations. And that is Natural Selection at work. I hope this helps. SGtar15 I hope you do not consider that evolution. Evolution, by definition, is changing the dna of a species. humans tend to think that natural selection is evolution in a direction we call "higher". The example you use, blonde hair and strength vs black hair and weakness, is error prone on a couple of different levels. The hair color has nothing to do with the "survival of the fittest". It is just a gene that is getting towed along with the gene that matters- bigger bodies, more strength. you could call the hair differentiation an evolutionary "red herring"- it has nothing to do with the process of moving up to a different creature. Even the strength incrrease is a red herring- it is not moving into a different creature, a better creature, it is just a modification or a specialization of existing traits. I didn't want to use these terms, since they are "emotionally charged" but you are describing micro-evolution. The continued specialization of a species. The DECREASE in gene possibilities. going form a one celled organism to a lizard to a bird or a monkey to humans is mAcro- evolution. Evolution on a grand scale, where entirely new genes and physical characteristics are created. see the difference? ps- no scientist has yet found any "intermediate steps" or transition species. nor has any been seen, but of course, the 10,000 - 15,000 years that humans have been recording history is just a blink in the evolutionary time span, right? |
|
danonly I was mearly showing how certain DNA traits can be carried while others are whipped out. My example clearly shows survival of the fittest. Similar example. You have small animals with long necks and other with short necks. All the tree leaves are up high so the shortr necks can't reach them and die. The long necks can and continue to breed more long necks. From this point on all these species of animals have long necks...or at least until something threathens them. Understand? If not...read some more. I stated before it's hard to explain natuyral selction in a few post. And it is in now way in conflict with my religion. SGtar15 |
|
species. nor has any been seen, but of course, the 10,000 - 15,000 years that humans have been recording history is just a blink in the evolutionary time span, right? I guess maybe if you consider scribbles on a cave wall a historical record you could go back that far... |
|
hmm yes that is evolution and yes scientists have found intermediary species. Heaven forfend you should watch or read the relevant National Geographic articles and programs among others. You ask a question based on your views constrained by a knowledge base that must be forced to fit into a theological view of the world. Hows this for a question? If everybody but Noahs' family perished in the flood can you show how the world repopulated all the animals and people in the known time or is the answer a supernatural event? |
|
Quoted: hmm yes that is evolution and yes scientists have found intermediary species. Heaven forfend you should watch or read the relevant National Geographic articles and programs among others. You ask a question based on your views constrained by a knowledge base that must be forced to fit into a theological view of the world. Hows this for a question? If everybody but Noahs' family perished in the flood can you show how the world repopulated all the animals and people in the known time or is the answer a supernatural event? You are saying that hair color extinction is evolution? Or is it the stronger physique is evolution? and which species are you referring to as intermediates? |
|
Quoted: danonly I was mearly showing how certain DNA traits can be carried while others are whipped out. My example clearly shows survival of the fittest. Similar example. You have small animals with long necks and other with short necks. All the tree leaves are up high so the shortr necks can't reach them and die. The long necks can and continue to breed more long necks. From this point on all these species of animals have long necks...or at least until something threathens them. Understand? If not...read some more. I stated before it's hard to explain natuyral selction in a few post. And it is in now way in conflict with my religion. SGtar15 ummm. Ok- what was the new gene that was created in your example? I am not denying that it is possible to exterminate genes, or the expression of them (phenotype). But show me an example of a new gene being created. that is the main issue right? the creation of new genes. Nothing "morphs" into something different without the creation of new genes. eliminating genes doesn't do anything for evolution, it is a dead end. |
|
Quoted: I hope you do not consider that evolution. Evolution, by definition, is changing the dna of a species. humans tend to think that natural selection is evolution in a direction we call "higher". Well, changes in DNA are mutations. Some are detrimental, some are beneficial to a species. Evolution uses natural selection to increase the progeny of a given mutation or characteristic thereby leading to gradual changes in a species. Couple this with geographic isolation and you can have development of new species. The example you use, blonde hair and strength vs black hair and weakness, is error prone on a couple of different levels. The hair color has nothing to do with the "survival of the fittest". It is just a gene that is getting towed along with the gene that matters- bigger bodies, more strength. It is not just survival of the fittest, though that plays a part of course. You must survive long enough to procreate and the more you do so the more likely your characteristics/genes are to survive. The converse is also true. Now say black hair or blond do not give any survival advantage but make you more attractive to the opposite sex. Thereby you would have the opportunity to increase your genes frequencies in the gene pool leading to a gradual change. Consider the coloration of birds. Why does that exist as it likely provides little survival advantage. Quite the contrary. It is almost certainly an atrractant for the opposite sex. Certainly this also explains why male birds are more brightly colored as well. you could call the hair differentiation an evolutionary "red herring"- it has nothing to do with the process of moving up to a different creature. Even the strength incrrease is a red herring- it is not moving into a different creature, a better creature, it is just a modification or a specialization of existing traits. But it is a difference. And if you take a few memebers of a species with said difference and isolate them from the other members of their species you would find that they would develop different mutations nd based on the selection of this new environment different traits may provide an advantage. I na large population these mutations would be absorbed throughout the population but in this instance the smaller group is developing its own unique gene pool. Given enough time they would become a unique species. You may find Darwin's discoveries in the Galapagos Islands interesting. These led to his initial ideas on evolution. I didn't want to use these terms, since they are "emotionally charged" but you are describing micro-evolution. The continued specialization of a species. The DECREASE in gene possibilities. Increasing specialization based on various environments is one way that evolution occurs. FWIW, while increaed specialization gives the species improved survival in a select environment during good times, during bad times or after a catastrophe more generalized species and smaller ones are far more likely to survive. ps- no scientist has yet found any "intermediate steps" or transition species. nor has any been seen, but of course, the 10,000 - 15,000 years that humans have been recording history is just a blink in the evolutionary time span, right? That's just not true. What is homo habilis? Homo erectus? The fossil record is being added to daily. I guess I would wonder what you consider a transition species for virtually every species that has existed, or currently exists, is a transition species. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: you could call the hair differentiation an evolutionary "red herring"- it has nothing to do with the process of moving up to a different creature. Even the strength incrrease is a red herring- it is not moving into a different creature, a better creature, it is just a modification or a specialization of existing traits. But it is a difference. And if you take a few memebers of a species with said difference and isolate them from the other members of their species you would find that they would develop different mutations nd based on the selection of this new environment different traits may provide an advantage. I na large population these mutations would be absorbed throughout the population but in this instance the smaller group is developing its own unique gene pool. Given enough time they would become a unique species. You may find Darwin's discoveries in the Galapagos Islands interesting. These led to his initial ideas on evolution. I didn't want to use these terms, since they are "emotionally charged" but you are describing micro-evolution. The continued specialization of a species. The DECREASE in gene possibilities. Increasing specialization based on various environments is one way that evolution occurs. FWIW, while increaed specialization gives the species improved survival in a select environment during good times, during bad times or after a catastrophe more generalized species and smaller ones are far more likely to survive. yes, i suppose that increased specialization could be called evolution if you want to. but it will never create new species. Darwins discoveries in the Galapagos? not really that exiciting. What would be exciting would be to take all of the different finchs and snails and have them rebred to share the genes and see what happens. get a versatile finch or versatile snail, i suppose. Could probably do the same with dogs nowadays. |
|
I'm stunned when people claim "no intermediate species" when they see things like archeopteryx: [img]www.homestead.com/2345bgs/files/archeopteryx.jpg[/img] much less a line-up of australopithecines through homo habilis, homo erectus, homo neadertalensis, etc. What are they looking for? What is it they expect to see? |
|
Yes, the development or elimination of traits is evolution. As noted by others there are several identified precursor homos habilus, erectus, etc etc. Since the original thesis question proposed that scientists had not identified intermediaries obviously nothing we could put forward would be acceptable, since "none have been identified'. In that closed forum nothing would be acceptable. The question denied validity of known and recognized science. Scientists have been successful in tracing DNA from the Horn of Africa throughout most of Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and into Australasia. Thee have also been branches that were not successful and have died out. In order to have a civilized dabate on this subject you will need to have a basic agreement on what is science and who are scientists, because you are trying (apparently)to argue to a mutually agreed point, but it isn't going to happen. You have one side that has it's beliefs based on faith and supernatural phenomena and unwilling to recognize basic scientific norms. And the other side, bases it's beliefs on strictly scientific information and refuses to accept any miraculous supernatural phenomena as possble or relevant. It's clear that you (generic not personal) don't want to accept any information which falls outside the Bible based creation mythos, even though other religious creation myths pedate it, and there is an abundance of evidence that the biblical timeline starts after other know events occured. |
|
Quoted: yes, i suppose that increased specialization could be called evolution if you want to. but it will never create new species. Of course it will. Of course it does. Why so many different types of deer? Finches? Eagles? Apes? Beleive me they all started out as a single species. Darwins discoveries in the Galapagos? not really that exiciting. What would be exciting would be to take all of the different finchs and snails and have them rebred to share the genes and see what happens. get a versatile finch or versatile snail, i suppose. Could probably do the same with dogs nowadays. No, as a matter of fact you couldn't. Darwin based his theory on the idea that sometime in the remote past some finches made it to the Galapapos. Perhaps a storm, etc. Their survival and ability to increase their population initially was restricted by their specialization with regards to diet primarily. Several new species arose to fill the dietary niches which were available. Initially there were probably a few members of the initial species which had minor differences which allowed them to take advantage of the new food sources giving them a significant advantage. If there were other species competing for those food sources that were already better specialized the evolution that occurred could not have happened. Further, the fact that they became geographically isolated allowed the more sudden changes to occur. |
|
Quoted: That's just not true. What is homo habilis? Homo erectus? The fossil record is being added to daily. I guess I would wonder what you consider a transition species for virtually every species that has existed, or currently exists, is a transition species. what, not going to bring up piltdown man? how bout "[i]Hesperopithecus[/i]"/ Nebraska man? or Australopithecus afarensis? (Lucy) homo habilis- "Handy Man" called that because he is suppossed to be more handy with tools than the great apes, yet the most well know, KNM-ER 1470, is only a skull and leg bones. Great- base a use of hand tools off fossils that don't have hands. Also considered a real doozy because bits and pieces of Australopithecus and Homo erectus bits and pieces have been credited to habilis. "we don't have what we need to prove "habilis" does what we want, so we'll just borrow these fossils from erectus and Austra. that do. no big deal" and finally, homo erectus- I'll just use this nice article from [b]SCIENCE[/b] that bastion of anti-evolutionary thought. Wolpoff et al., showed that the features of various human skulls indicated that there must have been interbreeding among modern-looking Homo sapiens and Neanderthals and even Homo erectus (Modern human ancestry at the peripheries: A test of the replacement theory, Science [b]291[/b](5502):293–297 got some more transition species you want to use? don't forget Archaeopteryx-In Eichstátt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. not much of a transition species there, eh? |
|
Quoted: I'm stunned when people claim "no intermediate species" when they see things like archeopteryx: [url]www.homestead.com/2345bgs/files/archeopteryx.jpg[/url] much less a line-up of australopithecines through homo habilis, homo erectus, homo neadertalensis, etc. What are they looking for? What is it they expect to see? A bird with teeth is no unique animal. Ordinary birds can have teeth. A little claw on a wing is proof of one type of animal changing into another? That doesn't even come close to science. That is just whimsy. Also, most of your intermediate Humanoids are fakes. Neadrathal was a single pigs tooth, LUCY was an extinct ape whose 'unique' knee was found two miles away from the rest of the skeleton, the one found in France (sorry, I forgot the name) was a man with ricketts (advanced type of arthritis). Evolutionists want to be accepted as legitimate scientists when they base their BELIEFS of origin on single pig's teeth. I guess the answer to the original question is infinity since the creation of DNA from nothing given no imput of order is impossible. MICRO evolution is science, macro evolution is religion! Planerench out. |
|
Quoted: In order to have a civilized dabate on this subject you will need to have a basic agreement on what is science and who are scientists, because you are trying (apparently)to argue to a mutually agreed point, but it isn't going to happen. You have one side that has it's beliefs based on faith and supernatural phenomena and unwilling to recognize basic scientific norms. And the other side, bases it's beliefs on strictly scientific information and refuses to accept any miraculous supernatural phenomena as possble or relevant. It's clear that you (generic not personal) don't want to accept any information which falls outside the Bible based creation mythos, even though other religious creation myths pedate it, and there is an abundance of evidence that the biblical timeline starts after other know events occured. [sarcasm Yeah, thats why i quote [b][i]SCIENCE[/b][/i], and the scientists that specialze in bird evolution, when they went to germany for their International Archaeopteryx Conference[sarcasm] does that mean they aren't "real scientists"? |
|
Quoted: It's clear that you (generic not personal) don't want to accept any information which falls outside the Bible based creation mythos, even though other religious creation myths pedate it, and there is an abundance of evidence that the biblical timeline starts after other know events occured. Who said anything about the "Bible based creation mythos"??? nothing i said has any relation to that. I could believe in the "big bang" or repopulation by aliens from another planet. If someone mentions micro-evolution as the mechanism for the vast number of species on this planet, I'll call [bs] ps- i like to watch National Geographic, thank youvery much. don't read the magazine to much anymore, more into PS TAR SAR, etc etc. also a member of the Discovery Book Club. heaven forbid! and, although i am sure you guys are preparing more counter arguments that will be interesting, i really do have to go to work. I'm not into posting and running, but i really do have to go. I'll be back monday, though! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I'm stunned when people claim "no intermediate species" when they see things like archeopteryx: [url]www.homestead.com/2345bgs/files/archeopteryx.jpg[/url] much less a line-up of australopithecines through homo habilis, homo erectus, homo neadertalensis, etc. What are they looking for? What is it they expect to see? A bird with teeth is no unique animal. Ordinary birds can have teeth. A little claw on a wing is proof of one type of animal changing into another? That doesn't even come close to science. That is just whimsy. Also, most of your intermediate Humanoids are fakes. Neadrathal was a single pigs tooth, LUCY was an extinct ape whose 'unique' knee was found two miles away from the rest of the skeleton, the one found in France (sorry, I forgot the name) was a man with ricketts (advanced type of arthritis). Evolutionists want to be accepted as legitimate scientists when they base their BELIEFS of origin on single pig's teeth. I guess the answer to the original question is infinity since the creation of DNA from nothing given no imput of order is impossible. MICRO evolution is science, macro evolution is religion! Planerench out. |
|
Quoted: I'm stunned when people claim "no intermediate species" when they see things like archeopteryx: [url]www.homestead.com/2345bgs/files/archeopteryx.jpg[/url] much less a line-up of australopithecines through homo habilis, homo erectus, homo neadertalensis, etc. What are they looking for? What is it they expect to see? I see a dead bird (science). Appearantly you know for a verifiable fact who his daddy was and that it produced offspring. Or you BELIEVE (religion) it is not just a dead bird but some cartoon concoction of dinosaur/bird/monkey destined to become something greater (or extinct as the case may be). Planerench out. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I'm stunned when people claim "no intermediate species" when they see things like archeopteryx: [url]www.homestead.com/2345bgs/files/archeopteryx.jpg[/url] much less a line-up of australopithecines through homo habilis, homo erectus, homo neadertalensis, etc. What are they looking for? What is it they expect to see? I see a dead bird (science). Appearantly you know for a verifiable fact who his daddy was and that it produced offspring. Or you BELIEVE (religion) it is not just a dead bird but some cartoon concoction of dinosaur/bird/monkey destined to become something greater (or extinct as the case may be). Planerench out. You see, I understand that science is faith, but it differs from religion in that it's faith [i]backed by empirical evidence[/i], and further, it's faith [i]changeable by contradictory evidence[/i]. It's not dogmatic in that no matter what evidence is presented, the faith remains unshakeable. The fossil evidence leads to the conclusion that evolution has produced an ever-increasing diversity of life from very primitive forms, through single-celled creatures, to more complex forms to what we see today, with massive extinctions from time to time. That's what the evidence indicates. Do we have all the evidence to plot an unbroken, unmistakeable line from primordial slime to [i]homo sapiens sapiens[/i] over a few billion years? No, but the trail appears unmistakeable. So I'll go on happily in my "faith" that evolution makes logical sense, and you can be happy in whatever faith you accept, with or without (or in spite of) hard evidence. |
|
OK, 2 pages and you didn't really answer my question. Also, some of you guys are showing a little lack of understanding about how exactly you think things evolved. For "natural selection" to work, there has to be different genes to SELECT in the first place. I.e. there has to be mutation, those mutated genes must be passed down to offspring, and eventually be "selected" to continue on. You don't just happen to have all these different gene combinations pop up out of nowhere. Without mutation in evolution, no species would EVER have "evolved", and any species that did exist would all have the exact same DNA and would in effect be all inbreeding. Now, let me ask something. Each base pair of DNA has one of 4 encodings (A, T, C, G). The possible number of combinations of a given gene would be 4 to the power of the number of base pairs, correct? Let's say a certain organism had 30 base pairs (btw humans have 3,000,000,000). 4 ^ 30 = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 possible combinations. Let's just say *something* were trying a diffent DNA combination once every SECOND, it would take 36,558,901,084 years of chance to come up with a given organism. Now, if you're interested try to calculate 4 ^ 3,000,000,000. Now, without any arguing about evolution vs. creationism I want you to tell me just how, by chance, that much DNA data was mutated & "selected" in 3 billion years. Give me hard numbers. |
|
Quoted: I BELIEVE it's one of those "intermediate species" that people claim don't exist, since it dates to a period between when we find dinosaurs and when we find "modern" birds. You see, I understand that science is faith, but it differs from religion in that it's faith [i]backed by empirical evidence[/i], and further, it's faith [i]changeable by contradictory evidence[/i]. It's not dogmatic in that no matter what evidence is presented, the faith remains unshakeable. The fossil evidence leads to the conclusion that evolution has produced an ever-increasing diversity of life from very primitive forms, through single-celled creatures, to more complex forms to what we see today, with massive extinctions from time to time. That's what the evidence indicates. Do we have all the evidence to plot an unbroken, unmistakeable line from primordial slime to [i]homo sapiens sapiens[/i] over a few billion years? No, but the trail appears unmistakeable. So I'll go on happily in my "faith" that evolution makes logical sense, and you can be happy in whatever faith you accept, with or without (or in spite of) hard evidence. In Eichstátt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. So, you are basically saying it is your religon that you Believe Archae. is a transition creature, since the evolutionary scientists do not see it as anything unique. About the only conclusion that they came to was "it is a true bird" KBaker believes in the church of evolution, NOT Science. |
|
Quoted: OK, 2 pages and you didn't really answer my question. The hell I didn't. Also, some of you guys are showing a little lack of understanding about how exactly you think things evolved. For "natural selection" to work, there has to be different genes to SELECT in the first place. I.e. there has to be mutation, those mutated genes must be passed down to offspring, and eventually be "selected" to continue on. Of course You don't just happen to have all these different gene combinations pop up out of nowhere. That's what a mutation is. Due to errors in replication, radiation, etc. Without mutation in evolution, no species would EVER have "evolved", and any species that did exist would all have the exact same DNA and would in effect be all inbreeding. correct! Now, let me ask something. Each base pair of DNA has one of 4 encodings (A, T, C, G). The possible number of combinations of a given gene would be 4 to the power of the number of base pairs, correct? Yes, but not all mutations are expressed. A codon(sets of three base pairs) codes for a specific amino acid from which a protein is made. Many amino acids are encoded for by several base pairs so a mutation may be inconsequential. Further, even if there is change in the amino acid sequence it may not effect the structure/function of the given protein and is therefore not expressed. Let's say a certain organism had 30 base pairs (btw humans have 3,000,000,000). 4 ^ 30 = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 possible combinations. Let's just say *something* were trying a diffent DNA combination once every SECOND, it would take 36,558,901,084 years of chance to come up with a given organism. How do you come by that reasoning? Now, if you're interested try to calculate 4 ^ 3,000,000,000. Now, without any arguing about evolution vs. creationism I want you to tell me just how, by chance, that much DNA data was mutated & "selected" in 3 billion years. Give me hard numbers. First, hard numbers will not explain it because there are numerous factors at work. What I would say is that once life developed there soon came to be a very large population of life on this planet. Thusly, it is not just one organism through which this is occurring. You need to look at the forest, not just one leaf on the tree and expect it to change in front of you. However, there are likely probabilities whcih can be drawn mathematically but they are all flawed due to the fact that the immense number of variables at work here cannot be written into an equation. Not yet anyway. I do have to wonder, myself, how the first cell got started. Did it come from another planet somehow? Mars perhaps? We may never know... Once it did, though, it flourished and reproduced, evolving and changing in order to fill all the available niches on planet Earth. I will refute Danonly's arguments later when I have more time. |
|
So the answer is, "it happened because my science book ('Bible') says so"! You have to realize, a very very small percentage of a completely random string of DNA data will be viable. With the trillions upon trillions of possible combinations & the rate of change over the given estimate of time, the probability that anything evolved by chance is extremely low. This is cold, hard, statistical, mathematical fact. I would like to know how this is explained. |
|
Quoted: Now, let me ask something. Each base pair of DNA has one of 4 encodings (A, T, C, G). The possible number of combinations of a given gene would be 4 to the power of the number of base pairs, correct? NO! Adenosine can only bind to Thymine, and Cytosine can only bind to Guanine. If i read correctly, you are saying that a segment of a DNA strand such as: A C A T G G T G T A C C can mutate to: A C A T A G G A G T A T C C or something like: A C A T A G G C G A C G T A That cannot happen. The only possible mutations occur when the nucleotides are paired up correctly, or sections of the strand are left out accidently (DNA replication is a complex process.), or new sections are accidently added. Sections of DNA can be added to existing strands, it is how genetic engineering happens, and it does happen in nature. Furthermore, every base pair would not have to change in order to create a new species. Don't humans have 98%+ of our DNA common to apes? Think about this: much of the DNA provides instructions for life sustaining functions that are common to many different organisms. Each organism does NOT have its own entirely unique genetic make up. |
|
Quoted: So the answer is, "it happened because my science book ('Bible') says so"! Hardly, and if this is what you think is the case, then you have not read my posts in this thread. I've done a pretty fair job of explaining this given the limited amount of info I am able to give typing on an internet site. Take a class if you don't get it. Look at the available evidence and reach an informed conclusion. You have to realize, a very very small percentage of a completely random string of DNA data will be viable. With the trillions upon trillions of possible combinations & the rate of change over the given estimate of time, the probability that anything evolved by chance is extremely low. This is cold, hard, statistical, mathematical fact. I would like to know how this is explained. What you are apparently driving at is where did the first cell come from? That question is likely unanswerable and I will give you that part of the argument. I have absolutely no idea. No one really does. But that wasn't your initial question was it? You wanted to know how man developed and this happened quite a far ways into the history of life on this planet. Further, once life got started, there is abundant clear cut evidence that it did evolve. Methinks you were disingenuous in your initial post! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Now, let me ask something. Each base pair of DNA has one of 4 encodings (A, T, C, G). The possible number of combinations of a given gene would be 4 to the power of the number of base pairs, correct? NO! Adenosine can only bind to Thymine, and Cytosine can only bind to Guanine. If i read correctly, you are saying that a segment of a DNA strand such as: A C A T G G T G T A C C can mutate to: A C A T A G G A G T A T C C or something like: A C A T A G G C G A C G T A That cannot happen. The only possible mutations occur when the nucleotides are paired up correctly, or sections of the strand are left out accidently (DNA replication is a complex process.), or new sections are accidently added. Sections of DNA can be added to existing strands, it is how genetic engineering happens, and it does happen in nature. Furthermore, every base pair would not have to change in order to create a new species. Don't humans have 98%+ of our DNA common to apes? Think about this: much of the DNA provides instructions for life sustaining functions that are common to many different organisms. Each organism does NOT have its own entirely unique genetic make up. Maybe you misunderstand. Each entry in the DNA strand can be 1 of 4 possible different combinations. Why does the binding on the other strand matter? I wasn't listing what those would bind two, I was just saying each base pair can be 1 of 4 different entries. |
|
Quoted: You have to realize, a very very small percentage of a completely random string of DNA data will be viable. With the trillions upon trillions of possible combinations & the rate of change over the given estimate of time, the probability that anything evolved by chance is extremely low. This is cold, hard, statistical, mathematical fact. I would like to know how this is explained. What you are apparently driving at is where did the first cell come from? That question is likely unanswerable and I will give you that part of the argument. I have absolutely no idea. No one really does. But that wasn't your initial question was it? You wanted to know how man developed and this happened quite a far ways into the history of life on this planet. Further, once life got started, there is abundant clear cut evidence that it did evolve. Methinks you were disingenuous in your initial post! Ug... no. I am saying, given that a cell first appeared, given that is was able to reproduce, how do you explain the large amount of data encoded through the process of evolution to arrive at mankind today? There is something close to a gigabyte of data in human DNA, given the supposed rate of new DNA being added/mutated over time, we can easily calculate the statistical viability of this process, no? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: So the answer is, "it happened because my science book ('Bible') says so"! Hardly, and if this is what you think is the case, then you have not read my posts in this thread. I've done a pretty fair job of explaining this given the limited amount of info I am able to give typing on an internet site. Take a class if you don't get it. Look at the available evidence and reach an informed conclusion. You have to realize, a very very small percentage of a completely random string of DNA data will be viable. With the trillions upon trillions of possible combinations & the rate of change over the given estimate of time, the probability that anything evolved by chance is extremely low. This is cold, hard, statistical, mathematical fact. I would like to know how this is explained. What you are apparently driving at is where did the first cell come from? That question is likely unanswerable and I will give you that part of the argument. I have absolutely no idea. No one really does. But that wasn't your initial question was it? You wanted to know how man developed and this happened quite a far ways into the history of life on this planet. Further, once life got started, there is abundant clear cut evidence that it did evolve. Methinks you were disingenuous in your initial post! I doubt that SNorman will accept any source other than God for how life began regardless of evidence but for third parties who might be curious check these links out. [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may96/828502570.Ev.r.html[/url] [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug2000/965332850.Ev.r.html[/url] [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov98/911577404.Bc.r.html[/url] [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/859416447.Ev.r.html[/url] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/040699sci-cell-rna.1.GIF.html[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1891592&dopt=Abstract[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=10607605&dopt=Abstract[/url] [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun2000/961007835.Bc.r.html[/url] [url]http://www.scibridge.sdsu.edu/coursemats/introsci/evolution/origins_of_life/[/url] [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Sep2003/1060103157.Cb.r.html[/url] Arguments about if RNA or other biological precursors landed on Earth from comets or astroids are largely red herrings. Somewhere, sometime there had to be a orginal source so research into the origins of complex carbon compounds and RNA are still valid. These topics mostly remain theories only because the dificulty we are having in sequencing RNA and DNA in the lab. So far sequencing equipment can only do short strands not complete sequences. We are presently waiting for technology to catch up. [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jan2002/1011824108.Cb.r.html[/url] [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98/907191564.Gb.r.html[/url] |
|
Quoted: I'm stunned when people claim "no intermediate species" when they see things like archeopteryx: [url]www.homestead.com/2345bgs/files/archeopteryx.jpg[/url] much less a line-up of australopithecines through homo habilis, homo erectus, homo neadertalensis, etc. What are they looking for? What is it they expect to see? Or saw Jurassic Park...[:D] |
|
Quoted: Quoted: You have to realize, a very very small percentage of a completely random string of DNA data will be viable. With the trillions upon trillions of possible combinations & the rate of change over the given estimate of time, the probability that anything evolved by chance is extremely low. This is cold, hard, statistical, mathematical fact. I would like to know how this is explained. What you are apparently driving at is where did the first cell come from? That question is likely unanswerable and I will give you that part of the argument. I have absolutely no idea. No one really does. But that wasn't your initial question was it? You wanted to know how man developed and this happened quite a far ways into the history of life on this planet. Further, once life got started, there is abundant clear cut evidence that it did evolve. Methinks you were disingenuous in your initial post! Ug... no. I am saying, given that a cell first appeared, given that is was able to reproduce, how do you explain the large amount of data encoded through the process of evolution to arrive at mankind today? There is something close to a gigabyte of data in human DNA, given the supposed rate of new DNA being added/mutated over time, we can easily calculate the statistical viability of this process, no? Ahh, I see. Okay, consider viruses. They are able to intercalate with the host DNA and then leave later. During this process they may transmit DNA to different organisms. In fact they do, and in fact, many of the most potent bacterial toxins were initially viral proteins with the DNA or RNA encoding them being "absorbed" into the host genome. Thusly, ancient bacterial DNA that provided an advantage may well have been added to the genetic material of other bacteria. Bacteria further conjugate and send DNA from one to another. This is another way in which this could occur. Viruses also probably palyed a large part in this in eucaryotic cells where the genes are held in a number of separate chromosomes. Most of our DNA is "nonsense" DNA which doesn't seem to code for anything but probably did at some point in our evolutionary tree or may just be left over viral DNA. Do not assume that every virus makes you ill BTW. Now once that occured errors in mitosis(cell division) may have led to redundant extra chromosomes which may have mutated differently from the original template chromosome leading to further variation and mutation. Once we see the development of eucaryotic cells this process took off at a faster rate. Further, Eucaryotic cells eventually developed sexual reproduction(not all do) and this results in recombination of genes with every new act. This occurs in several ways. This is somewhat simplified, of course, but I think I covered it pretty well overall. Remember that this has been going on for 3.5 billion years or so. Man has been here for 200,000 years tops, with only 6,000years of real written history. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Now, let me ask something. Each base pair of DNA has one of 4 encodings (A, T, C, G). The possible number of combinations of a given gene would be 4 to the power of the number of base pairs, correct? NO! Adenosine can only bind to Thymine, and Cytosine can only bind to Guanine. If i read correctly, you are saying that a segment of a DNA strand such as: A C A T G G T G T A C C can mutate to: A C A T A G G A G T A T C C or something like: A C A T A G G C G A C G T A That cannot happen. The only possible mutations occur when the nucleotides are paired up correctly, or sections of the strand are left out accidently (DNA replication is a complex process.), or new sections are accidently added. Sections of DNA can be added to existing strands, it is how genetic engineering happens, and it does happen in nature. Furthermore, every base pair would not have to change in order to create a new species. Don't humans have 98%+ of our DNA common to apes? Think about this: much of the DNA provides instructions for life sustaining functions that are common to many different organisms. Each organism does NOT have its own entirely unique genetic make up. Maybe you misunderstand. Each entry in the DNA strand can be 1 of 4 possible different combinations. Why does the binding on the other strand matter? I wasn't listing what those would bind two, I was just saying each base pair can be 1 of 4 different entries. I did misunderstand. You were not wrong. I apologize. Keep in mind what I said after "it does hapopen in nature" Also, one mutation will change the entire gene, so it would not take a mutation on each base pair to change the gene expression. |
|
Quoted: I doubt that SNorman will accept any source other than God for how life began regardless of evidence but for third parties who might be curious check these links out. [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug2000/965332850.Ev.r.html[/url] [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov98/911577404.Bc.r.html[/url] [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/859416447.Ev.r.html[/url] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/040699sci-cell-rna.1.GIF.html[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1891592&dopt=Abstract[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=10607605&dopt=Abstract[/url] [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun2000/961007835.Bc.r.html[/url] [url]http://www.scibridge.sdsu.edu/coursemats/introsci/evolution/origins_of_life/[/url] Arguments about if RNA or other biological precursors landed on Earth from comets or astroids are largely red herrings. Somewhere, sometime there had to be a orginal source so research into the origins of complex carbon compounds and RNA are still valid. These topics mostly remain theories only because the dificulty we are having in sequencing RNA and DNA in the lab. So far sequencing equipment can only do short strands not complete sequences. We are presently waiting for technology to catch up. [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jan2002/1011824108.Cb.r.html[/url] [url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98/907191564.Gb.r.html[/url] There are plenty of people who doubt evolution who also do not believe in God. I find it funny that you pretend to be wise and open minded, yet cannot address my question. In fact, nobody has. I can only assume you guys don't fully comprehend the numbers we are talking about here. Explaining how DNA might change does not explain how 3,000,000,000 pairs of DNA entries that describe the human being were created. Some process would have had to have been "trying" literally billions of different combinations of DNA per second for billions of years to come up with viable organisms. If we're talking about a handful of DNA changes per year, the whole process become mathematically impossible. Somehow, it's easy to let your eyes gloss over and talk about "billions and billions" of years and it all gets kinda fuzzy and it almost makes sense. But if you run the numbers it doesn't. |