Forums → WEPR → Evolution, creationism and the school cirriculum
| 697 | 104839 |
Well to start out i dont beleive in evoltuion so the fact that other things cant be taught really ticks me off but i just want to see what people think and why.
- 697 Replies
We do have fossils for comparison right?
Yes but all we would be doing is making alterations so that a current species demonstrates dormant traits. Short of creating a synthetic version from scratch we would only be able to come up with something close.
how am I writing this statement with logic
You're not. As Mage pointed out you once again refuse to learn and think critically. Furthermore you're confusing two seperate topics. How the universe came to be is not related to how humans, or any other species, evolved into it's present state. I guarentee if humans exist a million years from now, they most likely will look different than what we do today.
the word infintessimally was used instead of... very small.... it sounded better when I wrote it late last night. the chance for a mutation in general, with DNA/RNA proofreading enzymes is very small. Alot of mutations can be non-consequential, if the mutation arises in non coding areas of the genome... others can be harmful because each codon codes for an amino acid and if the wrong amino acids are linked together then the protein(s) that is/are made from that faulty DNA may not function properly or at all.
mutations arise from insertions of nucleotides, excision of one or more nucleotides, inversion of a strip of nucleotides, replacement of one or more nucleotides, and several other things. Since DNA transcribes into RNA and then into proteins at ribosomes, mutations causing the wrong amino acids than were intended to be a part of the proteins are generally a bad thing.
I don't remember the names off of the top of my head, but I recall being told that there are two-ish enzymes that are the major proof readers... the one that does the DNA replication and the one that comes in after it and proofreads a second time. The biochemist told me that the first one has a mess up rate of about 1 in every million or so nucleotides. The second messes up with fixing 1 out of every million or so of the ones the one before it messed up on. To get the total probability from both you multiply them together.
that makes a very large number.
other websites will tell you slightly different. I read one that said the rate at which the bases are altered from one website is 60 in every 3 billion. it didn't say how many were missed the second time around.
my justification of saying that the chance of a beneficial mutation occurring lied in the fact that mutations in general, for an organism with properly functioning machinery, have a very small chance of happening. the probability of a mutation is then divided up into its possibilities... non-consequential, bad ( i mean maybe u think cancer and sickle cell is a good thing...), and good ( defined by me as beneficial....which sickle prevents malaria from infecting its organism so you can argue whichever way you want on that one). So a very small chance of something happening is made even smaller when you look at only the beneficial side of it. maybe we could look up actual fidelity rates of dna replication. I just don't feel like it.
my astronomically small number did have some merit to it... I just don't have a phd in biochemistry and don't remember what exactly it was that he told me... and i didn't ask just so i could post it... it was from a cell biology class he taught.
i'm going to alter a quote... i haven't the slightest clue as to where it came from :-/ so i'm not going to cite anyone.
absence of evidence isn't quite evidence of absence.
there are all sorts of theories that postulate and "rove" why certain phenomena occur in nature. there are still alot of things that we know not why they happen the way they do... only that they in fact happen the way they do. In the great "loaf" of all of the planes of existence what caused two of which to crash into each other and form our universe and realm of existence (big bang)... our mathematical models stop working after they wind those initial first few moments after the bang at a certain point. Some view it as just some phenomena... I view it as an interaction of the being I call God. I see the science behind all of these things as not the proof of his non-existence, but the pathway by which it was created. If he does exist and did in fact create everything then he created the universe with a set of laws of physics and other science so that things would be able to exist the way they do. and everything after those initial ground rules was made in a way that would follow those rules.... therefore if that's true then there would be scientific explanations for those happenings that would leave God invisible in the picture.
i don't know how to quote things... do i just copy paste the desired tid bit and then highlight and click quote?...
and how would we know there was such a thing as an archeopteryx if we didn't have fossil remains? eggs leave behind fossilized unhatched bones btw.
you brought up a good point about the beaks and the lack thereof... except I don't think the two phenomena go together when you view it as I intended. yes... there exists differences in the spectrum of possibilities of a species but for the beaks to continue to grow there would need to be further mutation... natural selection can't be the sole factor if the possibility for that beak length wasn't there previously. there is a species of elephant seals that i remember reading about... there are very few left. they have been inbreeding because of the lack of any other members of their species. The text book said there is no longer any genetic variation amongst individuals. Natural selection can no longer act on that species because they're all the same... with the exception of males and females. maybe through them answers that delve deeper into evolution will be found.... if they no longer evolve then it may mean that random mutations don't occur like I've discussed. If they do some day show more variation then its more likely that those mutations do in fact happen or some dormant trait arose again as in the beaks of birds. I'm sure science will know where the variation comes from. But if they don't then its a less concrete answer... maybe they just didn't have enough time... maybe they did and just nothing happened. I think I've run myself in circles...
we have a frozen mamoth... we are most likely sooner to cloning it inside of an elephant than we are recreating the archeopteryx
i don't know how to quote things... do i just copy paste the desired tid bit and then highlight and click quote?...
Click quote, past the bit, then click quote again to close it.
For purposes of coherence I would post your reply again with quotes.
For purposes of coherence I would post your reply again with quotes.
I understand the need for coherence... but I'm only addressing one person in that post... besides the archeopteryx comment... I will quote from now on but it goes almost from top to bottom of his response to mine. and for different parts of it i might have to quote the same thing again just because I messed up and didn't think of something till after and didn't feel like figuring out how to reword things and accommodate my new thought. I believe mage will be capable of keeping things straight
I understand the need for coherence... but I'm only addressing one person in that post.
It's still pretty hard to follow.
I might have to get back to later as I'm stuck on just a borrowed laptop, and it's hurting to type right now.
If someone else want's to take a stab at it please go for it.
I do want to point out a couple of things.
other websites will tell you slightly different. I read one that said the rate at which the bases are altered from one website is 60 in every 3 billion. it didn't say how many were missed the second time around.
Yes they are all crap as well.
mutations arise from insertions of nucleotides, excision of one or more nucleotides, inversion of a strip of nucleotides, replacement of one or more nucleotides, and several other things. Since DNA transcribes into RNA and then into proteins at ribosomes, mutations causing the wrong amino acids than were intended to be a part of the proteins are generally a bad thing.
No they generally don't do anything.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
Okay I need to take a break.
mutations arise from insertions of nucleotides, excision of one or more nucleotides, inversion of a strip of nucleotides, replacement of one or more nucleotides, and several other things. Since DNA transcribes into RNA and then into proteins at ribosomes, mutations causing the wrong amino acids than were intended to be a part of the proteins are generally a bad thing.
[/quote]No they generally don't do anything.
from the website...
[quote]Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
I think I have acknowledged that due to the fact that a lot of the mutations that arise happen in non-coding areas they don't matter.
this is how proteins are formed for those that don't know. The transcribed RNA is taken to ribosomes where it is translate into proteins... basically for each codon there is a corresponding amino acid. there are more than one codon for some amino acids... in this way some mutations don't cause a problem... but if they do code for a different amino acid then it messes with the protein it is a part of... and this is how. proteins at the primary level are just a string... or interacting strings... of amino acids. these amino acids have different characteristics. some are polar, some are of neutral charge, some are acidic, some are basic...etc. These different AA characteristics interact with other AA's and form bonds. According to how the bonds are formed and how the amino acids interact, the peptide chain, or protein, folds in on itself and makes a globular quaternary structure. The functioning areas of the protein are dependent on the shape of the protein
protein structure are broken down into primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary parts... the primary one may actually just be the individual AA's and their bonds and the secondary one might be the chain but the designation is irrelevant to my point.
if the wrong amino acid is made then it has the potential to completely denature the protein that is supposed to be made. basically meaning it won't work. If its just a problem with the ribosome then it doesn't matter. the messed up protein will be destroyed by a lysosome or some other organelle. if it is due to a mutation in the dna then that problem will happen every time that part of the chromosome is transcribed. if it just happens in one cell then that cell will, if the problem is lethal, die. If it isn't then something might happen and the cell might reproduce wildly... if the cell's tumor inhibitting area of DNA is tampered with or turned off... sounds odd but its true.
its possible that a mutation will insert an amino acid that actually is better than the one intended... hence beneficial mutations.
as seen from the posted website... most significant mutations are harmful... while more than previously thought are beneficial.
this was slightly off topic and a condensed version of an entire chapter out of a book (sorries for the poor conversion from memory)
but I felt I needed to defend my previous statement.
and another thing... although similar... e coli do not have the same replicatory DNA polymerases that are found in humans. the web document... although highly similar to humans can't be seen as something worth going by for humans or other types of organisms. e coli is prokaryotic... prokaryotes account for most bacteria if i remember correctly. humans and lots of other organisms are eukaryotic. I'm pretty sure that there are differences in the fidelity rates in DNA replication of both types of organisms
i mean it probably makes little to no difference because of the scale of the numbers, but there are those out there that think DNA from all organisms is replicated and done the same way in all organisms... the base pairs (adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine) are universal, but the enzymes for the different types of organisms are different and can't be used to explain organisms of a different type accurately enough to state such postulations resolutely.
Okay now that I'm less uptight and every key stroke isn't causing me an bleep load of pain.
I think I have acknowledged that due to the fact that a lot of the mutations that arise happen in non-coding areas they don't matter.
Reread your second post you did mention that. Thought the way you made it seem in your first post it sounded like you were speaking of all mutations. Okay so what you meant was out of the ones that have an effect disregarding the majority that don't, correct?
my astronomically small number did have some merit to it.
Considering you seemed to be speaking of events that already took place the number isn't really justified. Now if you speaking of current changes this depends.
This has some interesting mathematics on this.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/151/4/1621#DISCUSSION
there are all sorts of theories that postulate and "rove" why certain phenomena occur in nature. there are still alot of things that we know not why they happen the way they do... only that they in fact happen the way they do. In the great "loaf" of all of the planes of existence what caused two of which to crash into each other and form our universe and realm of existence (big bang)... our mathematical models stop working after they wind those initial first few moments after the bang at a certain point. Some view it as just some phenomena... I view it as an interaction of the being I call God.
If we don't know something the only honest answer we can give is "we don't know".
I see the science behind all of these things as not the proof of his non-existence, but the pathway by which it was created. If he does exist and did in fact create everything then he created the universe with a set of laws of physics and other science so that things would be able to exist the way they do. and everything after those initial ground rules was made in a way that would follow those rules.... therefore if that's true then there would be scientific explanations for those happenings that would leave God invisible in the picture.
The gaps in our knowledge or the fact that the universe follows predictable patterns isn't for or again the existence of deity. However making a universe that seems as if there was no God required then claiming that deity (such as the Abrahamic God) demands worship does seem contradictory and puts into question such a deities existence. Also based on this we wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility of there being a pantheon of gods.
natural selection can't be the sole factor if the possibility for that beak length wasn't there previously.
No, but it is a primary motivator. If you can admit that beneficial changes can occur then I don't see the problem here.
there is a species of elephant seals that i remember reading about... there are very few left. they have been inbreeding because of the lack of any other members of their species. The text book said there is no longer any genetic variation amongst individuals. Natural selection can no longer act on that species because they're all the same... with the exception of males and females.
Fun fact, The Cheetah is also in the same boat. Since creation often relies on the Bible, this bit of information puts nails in a number of assertions made by creationists. Also putting nails in a number of claims of what the Christian God has done.
The gaps in our knowledge or the fact that the universe follows predictable patterns isn't for or again the existence of deity. However making a universe that seems as if there was no God required then claiming that deity (such as the Abrahamic God) demands worship does seem contradictory and puts into question such a deities existence. Also based on this we wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility of there being a pantheon of gods.
i think there is something about... "take no other gods before me" somewhere... there might be more in another section that adds to it, but as far as I am aware it doesn't say that there are no other gods... it just basically says.... I'm the one who created and made you. I'm the only one that matters.
all of that is just postulation and hot air I guess you would call it.
i think there is something about... "take no other gods before me" somewhere... there might be more in another section that adds to it, but as far as I am aware it doesn't say that there are no other gods... it just basically says.... I'm the one who created and made you. I'm the only one that matters.
Yes it does say that in the Bible. Though we can't use the Bible as evidence. So the "I'm the one who made you and everything" could just as easily be "We are the ones who made you and everything".
its true. as far as proof... I have none for those arguments.
i only have the thought process that it is harder for me to believe that everything in the universe has happened and occurred has done so on sheer chance alone than it is for me to believe that some being of what I term "greater power" to have had a hand in guiding everything.
And why is it more difficult to believe that something which is incredibly rare could happen in an incredibly vast place, than to believe that some being made itself, then made everything else?
To me it is more logical that life would arise by chance than by design. Even from a statistical point of view, life really isn't all that rare. If something happens only 1 time in a billion, yet these billions happen daily, then once in a billion translates to once per day.
When we think about the universe we have to try to bear in mind the shear vastness of it, and that because it is so vast incredibly rare things are really quite commonplace.
you have trillions of DNA molecules... u mutate more than once every day. most are fixed... of those that aren't fixed most are in non coding regions... of those left some code for the same thing... of those left they're either beneficial or harmful. If they're beneficial or neutral then they survive... if they are harmful then the cell itself can possibly be tagged for destruction.. or just die on its own. its possible that the mutation is beneficial to the cell and harmful to the over all organism... ie cancer cells.
another "i don't know" is how a collection of atoms from different elements can be sentient. ie. me. you choose to just say "i don't know" and just accept it... and pass if off as just science. I choose to say divine guidance. both of which are plausible theories considering "we don't know". one has more science pulling for it... or just science in general pulling for it while the other has very little support. next to none other than a book that was written by people over 2000 years ago who of which we have no way of knowing if their "inspirations" were correct. To each his own I guess
and by more than once a day I mean (everyone is different of course) something like a dozen or more times a day. i'm sure you can find a more experimentally tested number on some website somewhere
You must be logged in to post a reply!