Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Regulatory DNA -Responsible for Fast Evolutio

slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 7:26:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Threespine sticklebacks, small fish found around the globe, undergo rapid evolutionary change when they move from the ocean to freshwater lakes, losing their armor and gaining more teeth in as little as 10 years. A biologist shows that this rapid change results not from mutations in functional genes, but changes in regulatory DNA. He pinpoints a gene that could be responsible for teeth, bone or jaw deformities in humans, including cleft palate.

---------------

Like salmon, the two-inch long, threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is anadromous: it lives in oceans, but swims up freshwater streams to breed. Since the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago, many sticklebacks have colonized lakes and creeks, where their bodies quickly adapted to the new environment: they developed more teeth and stronger jaws, presumably to crack open larger prey found in freshwater, and they lost their armor, perhaps because of fewer predators. In one Alaskan Lake, these changes took a mere 10 years.

Miller, along with his postdoctoral advisor, coauthor David Kingsley of Stanford University, and scientists at the Broad Institute at MIT, sequenced the genomes of sticklebacks from 21 populations in 2012. They and established that all sticklebacks seem to have the same genes, but that rapid change in regulatory DNA allowed them to alter expression of their genes in order to adapt quickly to changing environments.
slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 7:29:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
pretty amazing. Couple this with some new experiments that conform epigentics can be passed though cell division and across generations and there is a clearer picture starting to show how organisms can change beyond random mutations as the driver.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 10:23:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 7:29:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
pretty amazing. Couple this with some new experiments that conform epigentics can be passed though cell division and across generations and there is a clearer picture starting to show how organisms can change beyond random mutations as the driver.

Yeah, it's genetics. What formerly was mistaken for evolution is actually genetics. Species can adapt, and this is part of the genius designed into species.

Again, the distinction we IDers make, which this new understanding underlines: The difference between variations enabled by information latent in the genes, which is technology, and the creation of new information by random errors, which is magic.
This space for rent.
slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 12:58:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 10:23:05 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/22/2014 7:29:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
pretty amazing. Couple this with some new experiments that conform epigentics can be passed though cell division and across generations and there is a clearer picture starting to show how organisms can change beyond random mutations as the driver.

Yeah, it's genetics. What formerly was mistaken for evolution is actually genetics. Species can adapt, and this is part of the genius designed into species.

Again, the distinction we IDers make, which this new understanding underlines: The difference between variations enabled by information latent in the genes, which is technology, and the creation of new information by random errors, which is magic.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease....... you still think there is something magical stopping specialization. Not to mention nobody mistook evolution for genetics. Evolution is a function of genetics and how they pass along many generations.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 1:15:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 12:58:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
... Evolution is a function of genetics and how they pass along many generations.

lol. It's like politics where no candidate wants an unpopular president to show up at their rallies. So, yeah, now evolution was Mendel all along, pay no attention to that silliness about random mutation. And you're probably not old enough to really know what I'm talking about, but I've lived long enough to see evos run away from evolution in significant ways. Sooner or later you're going to have to give it up altogether and find some other story.
This space for rent.
slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 1:58:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 1:15:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/22/2014 12:58:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
... Evolution is a function of genetics and how they pass along many generations.

lol. It's like politics where no candidate wants an unpopular president to show up at their rallies. So, yeah, now evolution was Mendel all along, pay no attention to that silliness about random mutation. And you're probably not old enough to really know what I'm talking about, but I've lived long enough to see evos run away from evolution in significant ways. Sooner or later you're going to have to give it up altogether and find some other story.

You are the only one who wants to write off mutations. Fact is mutations are proven to happen. It is just a matter of odds on whether it results in a good, bad, or indifferent change in the organism.

Evolution includes all mechanisms that result in a change in DNA and cell functionality. The extension of knowledge of biology such as the article I posted strengthens the case for evolution, not your wishful thinking of diminishing it. The title of the article, "..fast evolution" aught to at least indicate whether the new knowledge is considered beneficial or detrimental to the overall theory.

I could make a discovery of putting two opossums in a box and having a baby kangaroo jump out and you would still twist it to say it disproves evolution. Simple fact is there is no new knowledge that would ever change your mind.

Me on the other hand, all you have to do is prove that there is a mechanism that inhibits enough change between generations of organisms that would also inhibit a new species forming.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 4:17:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 1:58:41 PM, slo1 wrote:

I could make a discovery of putting two opossums in a box and having a baby kangaroo jump out and you would still twist it to say it disproves evolution. Simple fact is there is no new knowledge that would ever change your mind.

Actually, two opossums making a kangaroo would cast doubt on Evolution. The only way Evolution could still hold under those circumstances is if everything else we know about marsupial biology is wrong.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 7:03:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 7:29:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
pretty amazing. Couple this with some new experiments that conform epigentics can be passed though cell division and across generations and there is a clearer picture starting to show how organisms can change beyond random mutations as the driver.

Interesting article to show how quickly evolution can happen. Although I don't know why you extracted this is "a change beyond random mutations". The article just states how important are mutations (random, imo) on regulatory genes from the evolutive point of view.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 7:05:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 10:23:05 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/22/2014 7:29:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
pretty amazing. Couple this with some new experiments that conform epigentics can be passed though cell division and across generations and there is a clearer picture starting to show how organisms can change beyond random mutations as the driver.

Yeah, it's genetics. What formerly was mistaken for evolution is actually genetics. Species can adapt, and this is part of the genius designed into species.

Dude, seriously...?

Again, the distinction we IDers make, which this new understanding underlines: The difference between variations enabled by information latent in the genes, which is technology, and the creation of new information by random errors, which is magic.

I think you are ages of understanding what a gene is... You should at least read the wikipedia entrance, then repost that nonsense lol
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 7:51:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 7:26:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Threespine sticklebacks, small fish found around the globe, undergo rapid evolutionary change when they move from the ocean to freshwater lakes, losing their armor and gaining more teeth in as little as 10 years. A biologist shows that this rapid change results not from mutations in functional genes, but changes in regulatory DNA. He pinpoints a gene that could be responsible for teeth, bone or jaw deformities in humans, including cleft palate.

---------------

Like salmon, the two-inch long, threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is anadromous: it lives in oceans, but swims up freshwater streams to breed. Since the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago, many sticklebacks have colonized lakes and creeks, where their bodies quickly adapted to the new environment: they developed more teeth and stronger jaws, presumably to crack open larger prey found in freshwater, and they lost their armor, perhaps because of fewer predators. In one Alaskan Lake, these changes took a mere 10 years.

Miller, along with his postdoctoral advisor, coauthor David Kingsley of Stanford University, and scientists at the Broad Institute at MIT, sequenced the genomes of sticklebacks from 21 populations in 2012. They and established that all sticklebacks seem to have the same genes, but that rapid change in regulatory DNA allowed them to alter expression of their genes in order to adapt quickly to changing environments.


Adaptation is not evolution. The bigheads who say it is simply want to believe in evolution and are grasping at straws trying to prove the unprovable, and the silly, that their uncles were monkeys.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 8:10:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 7:05:44 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/22/2014 10:23:05 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/22/2014 7:29:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
pretty amazing. Couple this with some new experiments that conform epigentics can be passed though cell division and across generations and there is a clearer picture starting to show how organisms can change beyond random mutations as the driver.

Yeah, it's genetics. What formerly was mistaken for evolution is actually genetics. Species can adapt, and this is part of the genius designed into species.

Dude, seriously...?

Again, the distinction we IDers make, which this new understanding underlines: The difference between variations enabled by information latent in the genes, which is technology, and the creation of new information by random errors, which is magic.

I think you are ages of understanding what a gene is... You should at least read the wikipedia entrance, then repost that nonsense lol

Why don't you try understanding my post, eh?

What science is learning makes random mutation more and more of a side show. The DNA has the equivalent of error correcting mechanisms in it, that will allow certain changes but snuffs out others. Many of the changes previously considered to be random mutation are actually generated by the cell, a sort of self-modifying code. All in all it's as if the DNA was designed to preserve itself. And some people without an axe to grind, such as myself, are willing to make the obvious inference that life most likely IS just what it appears to be, something designed to reproduce with statistically bounded variation.

Mankind has observed for thousands of years that we seem to be sitting in somebody's living room, not in chaos. This is obvious, and mankind got stupid there for a while with Darwin's fanciful hypothesis. But I think the evo idea is on it's last legs, I don't know how much longer it can fight against the discoveries of microbiology.

You'll still want to know about dinosaurs, I'm sure, but they didn't evolve, because that's just nonsense. It had to be something else.
This space for rent.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 8:22:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 8:10:03 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/24/2014 7:05:44 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/22/2014 10:23:05 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/22/2014 7:29:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
pretty amazing. Couple this with some new experiments that conform epigentics can be passed though cell division and across generations and there is a clearer picture starting to show how organisms can change beyond random mutations as the driver.

Yeah, it's genetics. What formerly was mistaken for evolution is actually genetics. Species can adapt, and this is part of the genius designed into species.

Dude, seriously...?

Again, the distinction we IDers make, which this new understanding underlines: The difference between variations enabled by information latent in the genes, which is technology, and the creation of new information by random errors, which is magic.

I think you are ages of understanding what a gene is... You should at least read the wikipedia entrance, then repost that nonsense lol

Why don't you try understanding my post, eh?

What science is learning makes random mutation more and more of a side show. The DNA has the equivalent of error correcting mechanisms in it, that will allow certain changes but snuffs out others. Many of the changes previously considered to be random mutation are actually generated by the cell, a sort of self-modifying code. All in all it's as if the DNA was designed to preserve itself. And some people without an axe to grind, such as myself, are willing to make the obvious inference that life most likely IS just what it appears to be, something designed to reproduce with statistically bounded variation.

Mutation occurs, and it is not an unlikely event, it is common. It is happening on your body right now, and happens in every single life form. In bacteria, one mutation, JUST ONE, can grant a strain the capacility to survive or die on certain environment. This mutation can appear in just 24h from the moment the bacteria is born. To deny the mutation process, or as you call it "the creation of new information in the DNA" does not make you skeptical, makes you a fanatic denier.

Mankind has observed for thousands of years that we seem to be sitting in somebody's living room, not in chaos. This is obvious, and mankind got stupid there for a while with Darwin's fanciful hypothesis. But I think the evo idea is on it's last legs, I don't know how much longer it can fight against the discoveries of microbiology.

Since there's not a single piece of evidence, NOT EVEN ONE, against evolution, I'm curious as to "what discoveries" you are refering to, lol

You'll still want to know about dinosaurs, I'm sure, but they didn't evolve, because that's just nonsense. It had to be something else.

Yes, it was magic. You are right. Solved.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 8:24:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 7:51:22 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 9/22/2014 7:26:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Threespine sticklebacks, small fish found around the globe, undergo rapid evolutionary change when they move from the ocean to freshwater lakes, losing their armor and gaining more teeth in as little as 10 years. A biologist shows that this rapid change results not from mutations in functional genes, but changes in regulatory DNA. He pinpoints a gene that could be responsible for teeth, bone or jaw deformities in humans, including cleft palate.

---------------

Like salmon, the two-inch long, threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is anadromous: it lives in oceans, but swims up freshwater streams to breed. Since the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago, many sticklebacks have colonized lakes and creeks, where their bodies quickly adapted to the new environment: they developed more teeth and stronger jaws, presumably to crack open larger prey found in freshwater, and they lost their armor, perhaps because of fewer predators. In one Alaskan Lake, these changes took a mere 10 years.

Miller, along with his postdoctoral advisor, coauthor David Kingsley of Stanford University, and scientists at the Broad Institute at MIT, sequenced the genomes of sticklebacks from 21 populations in 2012. They and established that all sticklebacks seem to have the same genes, but that rapid change in regulatory DNA allowed them to alter expression of their genes in order to adapt quickly to changing environments.


Adaptation is not evolution. The bigheads who say it is simply want to believe in evolution and are grasping at straws trying to prove the unprovable, and the silly, that their uncles were monkeys.

Mutation of regolutaroy genes is not "adaptation". Get your sh*t together, then come back.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 8:44:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 8:24:06 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/24/2014 7:51:22 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 9/22/2014 7:26:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Threespine sticklebacks, small fish found around the globe, undergo rapid evolutionary change when they move from the ocean to freshwater lakes, losing their armor and gaining more teeth in as little as 10 years. A biologist shows that this rapid change results not from mutations in functional genes, but changes in regulatory DNA. He pinpoints a gene that could be responsible for teeth, bone or jaw deformities in humans, including cleft palate.

---------------

Like salmon, the two-inch long, threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is anadromous: it lives in oceans, but swims up freshwater streams to breed. Since the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago, many sticklebacks have colonized lakes and creeks, where their bodies quickly adapted to the new environment: they developed more teeth and stronger jaws, presumably to crack open larger prey found in freshwater, and they lost their armor, perhaps because of fewer predators. In one Alaskan Lake, these changes took a mere 10 years.

Miller, along with his postdoctoral advisor, coauthor David Kingsley of Stanford University, and scientists at the Broad Institute at MIT, sequenced the genomes of sticklebacks from 21 populations in 2012. They and established that all sticklebacks seem to have the same genes, but that rapid change in regulatory DNA allowed them to alter expression of their genes in order to adapt quickly to changing environments.


Adaptation is not evolution. The bigheads who say it is simply want to believe in evolution and are grasping at straws trying to prove the unprovable, and the silly, that their uncles were monkeys.

Mutation of regolutaroy genes is not "adaptation". Get your sh*t together, then come back.

You can believe in evolution all you want to. It's a joke. You can cuss like a stupid sailor intill your mother blushes.....if she blushes, maybe you learned your manners from her and she quit blushing long before you were born. Evolution is nothing but a hypothesis and the adaptations of a species when it moves from fresh to salt water or vice-versa, two very different environments, are not miracles of evolution. The mircale is that God programmed some of the fish to be able to survive in salt or in fresh water. Adaptation is not Evolution. That is why the believers in evolution say that such observed adaptation proves evolution is real....because they are grasping at straws trying to cling to their belief to convince themselves that they don't have to fear God and they won't burn in Hell. Who are they trying to fool, and why?

A ten year change of a species adapting to a new environment does not prove that life emerged out of non-life and it does not prove anyting other than the fact that a species adapted to a new environment.

Evolution is a religious faith in which the believer excuses His own difiance agaisnt God and asserts his own right to do whatever in the name of Hell ( which He insists is not there) he feels like doing untill he wakes up in the fire and can no longer deny Hell is real and He can't find God's love there.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 9:09:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 8:44:13 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 9/24/2014 8:24:06 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/24/2014 7:51:22 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 9/22/2014 7:26:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Threespine sticklebacks, small fish found around the globe, undergo rapid evolutionary change when they move from the ocean to freshwater lakes, losing their armor and gaining more teeth in as little as 10 years. A biologist shows that this rapid change results not from mutations in functional genes, but changes in regulatory DNA. He pinpoints a gene that could be responsible for teeth, bone or jaw deformities in humans, including cleft palate.

---------------

Like salmon, the two-inch long, threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is anadromous: it lives in oceans, but swims up freshwater streams to breed. Since the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago, many sticklebacks have colonized lakes and creeks, where their bodies quickly adapted to the new environment: they developed more teeth and stronger jaws, presumably to crack open larger prey found in freshwater, and they lost their armor, perhaps because of fewer predators. In one Alaskan Lake, these changes took a mere 10 years.

Miller, along with his postdoctoral advisor, coauthor David Kingsley of Stanford University, and scientists at the Broad Institute at MIT, sequenced the genomes of sticklebacks from 21 populations in 2012. They and established that all sticklebacks seem to have the same genes, but that rapid change in regulatory DNA allowed them to alter expression of their genes in order to adapt quickly to changing environments.


Adaptation is not evolution. The bigheads who say it is simply want to believe in evolution and are grasping at straws trying to prove the unprovable, and the silly, that their uncles were monkeys.

Mutation of regolutaroy genes is not "adaptation". Get your sh*t together, then come back.

You can believe in evolution all you want to. It's a joke. You can cuss like a stupid sailor intill your mother blushes.....if she blushes, maybe you learned your manners from her and she quit blushing long before you were born. Evolution is nothing but a hypothesis and the adaptations of a species when it moves from fresh to salt water or vice-versa, two very different environments, are not miracles of evolution. The mircale is that God programmed some of the fish to be able to survive in salt or in fresh water. Adaptation is not Evolution. That is why the believers in evolution say that such observed adaptation proves evolution is real....because they are grasping at straws trying to cling to their belief to convince themselves that they don't have to fear God and they won't burn in Hell. Who are they trying to fool, and why?

A ten year change of a species adapting to a new environment does not prove that life emerged out of non-life and it does not prove anyting other than the fact that a species adapted to a new environment.

Evolution is a religious faith in which the believer excuses His own difiance agaisnt God and asserts his own right to do whatever in the name of Hell ( which He insists is not there) he feels like doing untill he wakes up in the fire and can no longer deny Hell is real and He can't find God's love there.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.[2] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[3]

Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[4] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[5] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[6]

In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete.[7] Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.[8] Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[9][10]

You needed that.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 11:25:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 1:58:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/22/2014 1:15:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/22/2014 12:58:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
... Evolution is a function of genetics and how they pass along many generations.

lol. It's like politics where no candidate wants an unpopular president to show up at their rallies. So, yeah, now evolution was Mendel all along, pay no attention to that silliness about random mutation. And you're probably not old enough to really know what I'm talking about, but I've lived long enough to see evos run away from evolution in significant ways. Sooner or later you're going to have to give it up altogether and find some other story.

You are the only one who wants to write off mutations. Fact is mutations are proven to happen. It is just a matter of odds on whether it results in a good, bad, or indifferent change in the organism.

Evolution includes all mechanisms that result in a change in DNA and cell functionality. The extension of knowledge of biology such as the article I posted strengthens the case for evolution, not your wishful thinking of diminishing it. The title of the article, "..fast evolution" aught to at least indicate whether the new knowledge is considered beneficial or detrimental to the overall theory.

I could make a discovery of putting two opossums in a box and having a baby kangaroo jump out and you would still twist it to say it disproves evolution. Simple fact is there is no new knowledge that would ever change your mind.

Me on the other hand, all you have to do is prove that there is a mechanism that inhibits enough change between generations of organisms that would also inhibit a new species forming.

. Fact is mutations are proven to happen.

Oh yes, this is indeed fact. It is worthwhile to examine this fact in detail to determine what we can reasonably infer from this fact...

*The fact is that the overwhelming majority (more than 99%) of all mutations are deleterious.

*the fact is that the more fully we understand an individual mutation which is beneficial to the organism, the more likely we are to identify a net loss of genetic information, diminished function, and what amounts to a desperate act of "trench warfare" which disappears as soon as the environmental insult which triggered the mutation disappears.

*the fact is that the overwhelming majority of mutations, while slightly deleterious, are effectively neutral

*the fact is that in the case of higher organisms such as humans, each organism endures hundreds, perhaps thousands of mutations.

*the fact is that natural selection occurs at the level of the organism. Thus, the inheritance of mutation is a "package" deal where a surviving organism inherits hundreds, perhaps thousands of mutations.

When we consider all of these facts about random mutation together, we realize that higher organisms such as humans are inheriting not simply single, isolated, individual mutations which have been carefully examined and sifted by the wise sage of natural selection, but a package of many mutations. Therefore, in the case of humans, each of us is carrying a number of mutations, likely numbering in the thousands, most of which, though not lethal, are in fact deleterious, and the few (if any) "good" mutations are likely a desparate adjustment to a temporary condition and are in the long run also harmful themselves. Therefore, the fact is that we are devolving, not evolving! To reach the conclusion that random mutations help build a better animal is very much like the shop owner who loses a little on each transaction but makes up for it in volume.

As for your observation that regulatory DNA is responsible for fast adaptation, this too is worth a closer look:

Implicit in the very term is a teleological mechanism at work. This mechanism operates at a level above the protein synthesis system. Thus we have (at least) two systems in view here; systems that work in concert with one another in a holistic framework. Hence the term, "epigenome," meaning "above the genome."

The fact is that the closer we look at the genome, the more levels of hierarchy we see at play. We see these levels communicating and cooperating with one another in a highly organized, top down fashion.

You and the paper you cite have correctly pointed to a regulatory mechanism that aids our understanding of genomes. However, the existence of this level of regulatory control does the grand theory of evolution ( to include abiogenesis. ) no favors. Indeed, there is no need at all to bring this theory into the discussion. If anything, we have added yet another inexplicable (by purely natural processes) conundrum to the problem of abiogenesis.

It is worth noting that until recently many regions of regulatory DNA were assumed to be "junk" from the evolutionary perspective. The presence of regulatory controls that operate above the level of protein synthesis is much more in line with ID than with any natural process.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 1:21:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 11:25:48 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
. Fact is mutations are proven to happen.

Oh yes, this is indeed fact. It is worthwhile to examine this fact in detail to determine what we can reasonably infer from this fact...

*The fact is that the overwhelming majority (more than 99%) of all mutations are deleterious.

*the fact is that the more fully we understand an individual mutation which is beneficial to the organism, the more likely we are to identify a net loss of genetic information, diminished function, and what amounts to a desperate act of "trench warfare" which disappears as soon as the environmental insult which triggered the mutation disappears.

*the fact is that the overwhelming majority of mutations, while slightly deleterious, are effectively neutral

*the fact is that in the case of higher organisms such as humans, each organism endures hundreds, perhaps thousands of mutations.

*the fact is that natural selection occurs at the level of the organism. Thus, the inheritance of mutation is a "package" deal where a surviving organism inherits hundreds, perhaps thousands of mutations.

When we consider all of these facts about random mutation together, we realize that higher organisms such as humans are inheriting not simply single, isolated, individual mutations which have been carefully examined and sifted by the wise sage of natural selection, but a package of many mutations. Therefore, in the case of humans, each of us is carrying a number of mutations, likely numbering in the thousands, most of which, though not lethal, are in fact deleterious, and the few (if any) "good" mutations are likely a desparate adjustment to a temporary condition and are in the long run also harmful themselves. Therefore, the fact is that we are devolving, not evolving! To reach the conclusion that random mutations help build a better animal is very much like the shop owner who loses a little on each transaction but makes up for it in volume.

As for your observation that regulatory DNA is responsible for fast adaptation, this too is worth a closer look:

Implicit in the very term is a teleological mechanism at work. This mechanism operates at a level above the protein synthesis system. Thus we have (at least) two systems in view here; systems that work in concert with one another in a holistic framework. Hence the term, "epigenome," meaning "above the genome."

The fact is that the closer we look at the genome, the more levels of hierarchy we see at play. We see these levels communicating and cooperating with one another in a highly organized, top down fashion.

You and the paper you cite have correctly pointed to a regulatory mechanism that aids our understanding of genomes. However, the existence of this level of regulatory control does the grand theory of evolution ( to include abiogenesis. ) no favors. Indeed, there is no need at all to bring this theory into the discussion. If anything, we have added yet another inexplicable (by purely natural processes) conundrum to the problem of abiogenesis.

It is worth noting that until recently many regions of regulatory DNA were assumed to be "junk" from the evolutionary perspective. The presence of regulatory controls that operate above the level of protein synthesis is much more in line with ID than with any natural process.

Would you care to link to your source(s)? The reason I ask is that, right from the start, you're wrong with your first claim. A deleterious mutation is one that has a negative impact on an organism's phenotype. And, as you mention later, most mutations are actually silent (you use the term neutral). So you can't have mutations that are both deleterious and neutral/silent. Where did you get this information that you're stating as fact?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 4:43:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 11:25:48 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
*The fact is that the overwhelming majority (more than 99%) of all mutations are deleterious.

Source?

*the fact is that the more fully we understand an individual mutation which is beneficial to the organism, the more likely we are to identify a net loss of genetic information, diminished function, and what amounts to a desperate act of "trench warfare" which disappears as soon as the environmental insult which triggered the mutation disappears.

Mutations can not "disappear" nor can genes mutate as a reaction to environment (other than DNA being harmed by, ie, UV light).

*the fact is that the overwhelming majority of mutations, while slightly deleterious, are effectively neutral

I don"t see the relevance. Deleterious mutations reduce fitness, and thus if deleterious mutations appear in a population, individuals start dying to summarize, and thus the few advantageous mutations become apparent. This is something that supports evolution, but I think you were under the impression it didn"t.

*the fact is that in the case of higher organisms such as humans, each organism endures hundreds, perhaps thousands of mutations.

So?

*the fact is that natural selection occurs at the level of the organism.

Natural selection is the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population [...] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
You are welcome.

Thus, the inheritance of mutation is a "package" deal where a surviving organism inherits hundreds, perhaps thousands of mutations.

No. Offspring inherits only those mutations that have occurred in the sex cells (sperm and eggs in the case of a human).

When we consider all of these facts about random mutation together,

Not that you presented any actual "fact". But ok.

We realize that higher organisms such as humans are inheriting not simply single, isolated, individual mutations which have been carefully examined and sifted by the wise sage of natural selection, but a package of many mutations. Therefore, in the case of humans, each of us is carrying a number of mutations, likely numbering in the thousands, most of which, though not lethal, are in fact deleterious,

No. A thousand deleterious mutations in your sex cells would likely render you unable to reproduce.

And the few (if any) "good" mutations are likely a desparate adjustment to a temporary condition and are in the long run also harmful themselves.

Again, mutations do not occur as "adjustment to a temporary condition", they are random, not a response to environment.

Therefore, the fact is that we are devolving, not evolving!

lol

To reach the conclusion that random mutations help build a better animal is very much like the shop owner who loses a little on each transaction but makes up for it in volume.

You would reach that conclusion if all your premises were not bs.

As for your observation that regulatory DNA is responsible for fast adaptation, this too is worth a closer look:

Implicit in the very term is a teleological mechanism at work. This mechanism operates at a level above the protein synthesis system. Thus we have (at least) two systems in view here; systems that work in concert with one another in a holistic framework. Hence the term, "epigenome," meaning "above the genome."

The fact is that the closer we look at the genome, the more levels of hierarchy we see at play. We see these levels communicating and cooperating with one another in a highly organized, top down fashion.

You and the paper you cite have correctly pointed to a regulatory mechanism that aids our understanding of genomes. However, the existence of this level of regulatory control does the grand theory of evolution ( to include abiogenesis. ) no favors. Indeed, there is no need at all to bring this theory into the discussion. If anything, we have added yet another inexplicable (by purely natural processes) conundrum to the problem of abiogenesis.

Not at all. This is precissely very helpfull to evolution. Evolution has traditionally been criticized by the need for "too much time" for a species to evolve, and the apparent difficulty of explaining the "Cambrian explosion" because it occurred too quickly to evolutionary standards. If mutations of regulatory genes can achieve dramatic changes in just 10 years, the "Cambrian explosion" is no longer a problem for evolutionary theory.

It is worth noting that until recently many regions of regulatory DNA were assumed to be "junk" from the evolutionary perspective. The presence of regulatory controls that operate above the level of protein synthesis is much more in line with ID than with any natural process.

How come?
slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 8:00:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 7:03:25 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/22/2014 7:29:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
pretty amazing. Couple this with some new experiments that conform epigentics can be passed though cell division and across generations and there is a clearer picture starting to show how organisms can change beyond random mutations as the driver.

Interesting article to show how quickly evolution can happen. Although I don't know why you extracted this is "a change beyond random mutations". The article just states how important are mutations (random, imo) on regulatory genes from the evolutive point of view.

"How organisms can change beyond random mutations", meaning there are other mechanisms involved. If one can imagine how much an organism can change via the mechanisms mentioned, it doesnt take much imagination on how mutions over generations would result in a different type of organism.

Thus how it becomes faster.
slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 8:04:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 7:51:22 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 9/22/2014 7:26:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Threespine sticklebacks, small fish found around the globe, undergo rapid evolutionary change when they move from the ocean to freshwater lakes, losing their armor and gaining more teeth in as little as 10 years. A biologist shows that this rapid change results not from mutations in functional genes, but changes in regulatory DNA. He pinpoints a gene that could be responsible for teeth, bone or jaw deformities in humans, including cleft palate.

---------------

Like salmon, the two-inch long, threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is anadromous: it lives in oceans, but swims up freshwater streams to breed. Since the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago, many sticklebacks have colonized lakes and creeks, where their bodies quickly adapted to the new environment: they developed more teeth and stronger jaws, presumably to crack open larger prey found in freshwater, and they lost their armor, perhaps because of fewer predators. In one Alaskan Lake, these changes took a mere 10 years.

Miller, along with his postdoctoral advisor, coauthor David Kingsley of Stanford University, and scientists at the Broad Institute at MIT, sequenced the genomes of sticklebacks from 21 populations in 2012. They and established that all sticklebacks seem to have the same genes, but that rapid change in regulatory DNA allowed them to alter expression of their genes in order to adapt quickly to changing environments.


Adaptation is not evolution. The bigheads who say it is simply want to believe in evolution and are grasping at straws trying to prove the unprovable, and the silly, that their uncles were monkeys.

What exactly are you calling adaption? Specify at a cellular level.
slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 8:10:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 11:25:48 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 9/22/2014 1:58:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/22/2014 1:15:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/22/2014 12:58:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
... Evolution is a function of genetics and how they pass along many generations.

lol. It's like politics where no candidate wants an unpopular president to show up at their rallies. So, yeah, now evolution was Mendel all along, pay no attention to that silliness about random mutation. And you're probably not old enough to really know what I'm talking about, but I've lived long enough to see evos run away from evolution in significant ways. Sooner or later you're going to have to give it up altogether and find some other story.

You are the only one who wants to write off mutations. Fact is mutations are proven to happen. It is just a matter of odds on whether it results in a good, bad, or indifferent change in the organism.

Evolution includes all mechanisms that result in a change in DNA and cell functionality. The extension of knowledge of biology such as the article I posted strengthens the case for evolution, not your wishful thinking of diminishing it. The title of the article, "..fast evolution" aught to at least indicate whether the new knowledge is considered beneficial or detrimental to the overall theory.

I could make a discovery of putting two opossums in a box and having a baby kangaroo jump out and you would still twist it to say it disproves evolution. Simple fact is there is no new knowledge that would ever change your mind.

Me on the other hand, all you have to do is prove that there is a mechanism that inhibits enough change between generations of organisms that would also inhibit a new species forming.

. Fact is mutations are proven to happen.

Oh yes, this is indeed fact. It is worthwhile to examine this fact in detail to determine what we can reasonably infer from this fact...

*The fact is that the overwhelming majority (more than 99%) of all mutations are deleterious.

*the fact is that the more fully we understand an individual mutation which is beneficial to the organism, the more likely we are to identify a net loss of genetic information, diminished function, and what amounts to a desperate act of "trench warfare" which disappears as soon as the environmental insult which triggered the mutation disappears.

*the fact is that the overwhelming majority of mutations, while slightly deleterious, are effectively neutral

*the fact is that in the case of higher organisms such as humans, each organism endures hundreds, perhaps thousands of mutations.

*the fact is that natural selection occurs at the level of the organism. Thus, the inheritance of mutation is a "package" deal where a surviving organism inherits hundreds, perhaps thousands of mutations.

When we consider all of these facts about random mutation together, we realize that higher organisms such as humans are inheriting not simply single, isolated, individual mutations which have been carefully examined and sifted by the wise sage of natural selection, but a package of many mutations. Therefore, in the case of humans, each of us is carrying a number of mutations, likely numbering in the thousands, most of which, though not lethal, are in fact deleterious, and the few (if any) "good" mutations are likely a desparate adjustment to a temporary condition and are in the long run also harmful themselves. Therefore, the fact is that we are devolving, not evolving! To reach the conclusion that random mutations help build a better animal is very much like the shop owner who loses a little on each transaction but makes up for it in volume.

As for your observation that regulatory DNA is responsible for fast adaptation, this too is worth a closer look:

Implicit in the very term is a teleological mechanism at work. This mechanism operates at a level above the protein synthesis system. Thus we have (at least) two systems in view here; systems that work in concert with one another in a holistic framework. Hence the term, "epigenome," meaning "above the genome."

The fact is that the closer we look at the genome, the more levels of hierarchy we see at play. We see these levels communicating and cooperating with one another in a highly organized, top down fashion.

You and the paper you cite have correctly pointed to a regulatory mechanism that aids our understanding of genomes. However, the existence of this level of regulatory control does the grand theory of evolution ( to include abiogenesis. ) no favors. Indeed, there is no need at all to bring this theory into the discussion. If anything, we have added yet another inexplicable (by purely natural processes) conundrum to the problem of abiogenesis.

It is worth noting that until recently many regions of regulatory DNA were assumed to be "junk" from the evolutionary perspective. The presence of regulatory controls that operate above the level of protein synthesis is much more in line with ID than with any natural process.

If your 99% were true, I still dont understand how you would think a 1% rate of positive genetic changes would not result in dispersion in generations of off spring.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 10:06:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 8:04:26 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

What exactly are you calling adaption? Specify at a cellular level.

One can't do that now, can one? Adaptation is system level feature. Allow yourself to absorb this and you'll be a long way towards getting cured of evocrapspeak. (So you may not want to think about that too deeply)
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 10:51:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 10:06:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/25/2014 8:04:26 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

What exactly are you calling adaption? Specify at a cellular level.

One can't do that now, can one? Adaptation is system level feature. Allow yourself to absorb this and you'll be a long way towards getting cured of evocrapspeak. (So you may not want to think about that too deeply)

What does "adaptation is a system level feature" mean?
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 4:51:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 8:04:26 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/24/2014 7:51:22 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 9/22/2014 7:26:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Threespine sticklebacks, small fish found around the globe, undergo rapid evolutionary change when they move from the ocean to freshwater lakes, losing their armor and gaining more teeth in as little as 10 years. A biologist shows that this rapid change results not from mutations in functional genes, but changes in regulatory DNA. He pinpoints a gene that could be responsible for teeth, bone or jaw deformities in humans, including cleft palate.

---------------

Like salmon, the two-inch long, threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is anadromous: it lives in oceans, but swims up freshwater streams to breed. Since the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago, many sticklebacks have colonized lakes and creeks, where their bodies quickly adapted to the new environment: they developed more teeth and stronger jaws, presumably to crack open larger prey found in freshwater, and they lost their armor, perhaps because of fewer predators. In one Alaskan Lake, these changes took a mere 10 years.

Miller, along with his postdoctoral advisor, coauthor David Kingsley of Stanford University, and scientists at the Broad Institute at MIT, sequenced the genomes of sticklebacks from 21 populations in 2012. They and established that all sticklebacks seem to have the same genes, but that rapid change in regulatory DNA allowed them to alter expression of their genes in order to adapt quickly to changing environments.


Adaptation is not evolution. The bigheads who say it is simply want to believe in evolution and are grasping at straws trying to prove the unprovable, and the silly, that their uncles were monkeys.

What exactly are you calling adaption? Specify at a cellular level.

Do you know what a dictionary is and how to use it? If you do, you can find there what the meaning of adaptation is. If you are in prison, maybe they have a dictionary in the cellurlar level where the rec room and library are located. You probably have to be a trustee for that, so I suggest you look it up on the internet since you do seem to have easy access to the net in prison there.
slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 9:34:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 4:51:33 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 9/25/2014 8:04:26 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/24/2014 7:51:22 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 9/22/2014 7:26:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Threespine sticklebacks, small fish found around the globe, undergo rapid evolutionary change when they move from the ocean to freshwater lakes, losing their armor and gaining more teeth in as little as 10 years. A biologist shows that this rapid change results not from mutations in functional genes, but changes in regulatory DNA. He pinpoints a gene that could be responsible for teeth, bone or jaw deformities in humans, including cleft palate.

---------------

Like salmon, the two-inch long, threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is anadromous: it lives in oceans, but swims up freshwater streams to breed. Since the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago, many sticklebacks have colonized lakes and creeks, where their bodies quickly adapted to the new environment: they developed more teeth and stronger jaws, presumably to crack open larger prey found in freshwater, and they lost their armor, perhaps because of fewer predators. In one Alaskan Lake, these changes took a mere 10 years.

Miller, along with his postdoctoral advisor, coauthor David Kingsley of Stanford University, and scientists at the Broad Institute at MIT, sequenced the genomes of sticklebacks from 21 populations in 2012. They and established that all sticklebacks seem to have the same genes, but that rapid change in regulatory DNA allowed them to alter expression of their genes in order to adapt quickly to changing environments.


Adaptation is not evolution. The bigheads who say it is simply want to believe in evolution and are grasping at straws trying to prove the unprovable, and the silly, that their uncles were monkeys.

What exactly are you calling adaption? Specify at a cellular level.

Do you know what a dictionary is and how to use it? If you do, you can find there what the meaning of adaptation is. If you are in prison, maybe they have a dictionary in the cellurlar level where the rec room and library are located. You probably have to be a trustee for that, so I suggest you look it up on the internet since you do seem to have easy access to the net in prison there.

Interpretation: I am not able to define what an adaptatuon is at a celular level therefore I will rant and rave
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 2:08:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 10:06:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:

One can't do that now, can one? Adaptation is system level feature. Allow yourself to absorb this and you'll be a long way towards getting cured of evocrapspeak. (So you may not want to think about that too deeply)

Adaptation is evolution, f-cktard.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 8:46:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 10:51:16 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/25/2014 10:06:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/25/2014 8:04:26 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

What exactly are you calling adaption? Specify at a cellular level.

One can't do that now, can one? Adaptation is system level feature. Allow yourself to absorb this and you'll be a long way towards getting cured of evocrapspeak. (So you may not want to think about that too deeply)

What does "adaptation is a system level feature" mean?

Really? It means a system adapts. A cell does not adapt to swimming in warmer water, a fish does.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 8:52:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 8:46:31 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/25/2014 10:51:16 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/25/2014 10:06:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/25/2014 8:04:26 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

What exactly are you calling adaption? Specify at a cellular level.

One can't do that now, can one? Adaptation is system level feature. Allow yourself to absorb this and you'll be a long way towards getting cured of evocrapspeak. (So you may not want to think about that too deeply)

What does "adaptation is a system level feature" mean?

Really? It means a system adapts. A cell does not adapt to swimming in warmer water, a fish does.

Yes, really. The terms you're using are ambiguous and potentially confusing. A population adapts. I'm asking for clarification to make sure that's what you're trying to say.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 8:57:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 2:08:59 AM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
At 9/25/2014 10:06:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:

One can't do that now, can one? Adaptation is system level feature. Allow yourself to absorb this and you'll be a long way towards getting cured of evocrapspeak. (So you may not want to think about that too deeply)

Adaptation is evolution, f-cktard.

Nope. There are a number of types of adaptation. Your eyes adapt to dim light when you step outside at night, for instance. That's a temporal adaptation, you might say. In the context of a thread like this, we're talking about species adapting. That can happen through genetics. If birds eat all the white moths, dark moths will prosper. But this is not evolution, it comes about by genetics, by the statistical variation built into the genes, much as humans have varying color hair.

Evolution proper requires new things to emerge in the genes. Just shuffling around what's already in the genes is genetics. Darwinian evolution requires the slow accumulation of small changes in the genes to produce completely new genes that enable new organs and species and so on.

So yeah, there's this desperate attempt with evos to say things just the right way, that somehow this will make magic possible. If you're really interested in exploring origins, the key is to really think about the details, and not medicate yourself with authorized phraseology.
This space for rent.