Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

We know the simplest genetic sequence is like ~200 genes long or thereabout, how we got to ~200 genes from nothing is a 'mystery', which is fine.

But I'd like to know the explanation for how genetic material increases through evolution after having those ~200 genes? Not looking for an explanation involving duplication unless it would explain how unique genetic material comes about that produces a new sustainable life form.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 621
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Questions such as: What is the point of theory of Evolution? Are neglected and are not encouraged. For the answer proves that it is pointless. Academic Scholars and Scientist are i

I guess, ill make this here. My previous topic on morals condones the theory of evolution, and im sure there are many people here who would automatically reject my concepts just because i use evoluti

How is Prophet Adam’s (A.S.) creation (about 5,764 years ago) make sense when fossils found from human beings are almost 25 million years old? question From the beginning

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member
On 1/29/2019 at 11:40 AM, dragonxx said:

We know the simplest genetic sequence is like ~200 genes long or thereabout, how we got to ~200 genes from nothing is a 'mystery', which is fine.

But I'd like to know the explanation for how genetic material increases through evolution after having those ~200 genes? Not looking for an explanation involving duplication unless it would explain how unique genetic material comes about that produces a new sustainable life form.

What do you mean by "unique" when referring to genetic material?

 

If you begin with AAAA, and have a duplication, then you would have AAAA AAAA. Subsequent point mutations can act on either the original or duplicated genes so you could end up with something like AAAA AATA.

By the end you have a quantitatively greater amount of DNA (sometimes referred to as information)and you have a novel sequence that did not exist prior to the duplication and point mutation. It is a unique sequence in the sense that there are none other like it nor were there any before it that were like it.

If AAAA AATA produces proteins which assist sin the populations survival, that point mutation will become fixed and locked into the genetic sequence of the population.

If AAAA AATA is detrimental to the populations survival, then they will be out-competed and will go extinct.

If the sequence is neutral then the population will simply carry on.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • Advanced Member
On 2/2/2019 at 8:36 PM, iCenozoic said:

If AAAA AATA is detrimental to the populations survival, then they will be out-competed and will go extinct.

 

sorry for the super late reply.

isn't this the case most of the time? that the mutation(s) is detrimental to the life form's existence and rarely beneficial? Let alone getting that totally 'random' perfect beneficial mutation at the exact moment a creature needs it when the creature is subjected to a life-threatening change in the environment.. I mean sure if there is some sort of intelligence force directing such occurrences, but for random chance alone it is not plausible in the least. so far I still haven't come across a convincing mechanism outside of intelligence, and random chance will never be a convincing mechanism...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

I wasn't able to understand how sexual organs or the sexual system as a whole evolved.

For sexual reproductive system to evolve, evolution must take place. And for evolution to take place reproduction must occur. But, at some point in time sexual reproductive organs did not exist. So, how did it evolve?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 hours ago, dragonxx said:

sorry for the super late reply.

isn't this the case most of the time? that the mutation(s) is detrimental to the life form's existence and rarely beneficial? Let alone getting that totally 'random' perfect beneficial mutation at the exact moment a creature needs it when the creature is subjected to a life-threatening change in the environment.. I mean sure if there is some sort of intelligence force directing such occurrences, but for random chance alone it is not plausible in the least. so far I still haven't come across a convincing mechanism outside of intelligence, and random chance will never be a convincing mechanism...

 

Yea so, this is a common question that people present. The question of how common beneficial mutations are.

In which case, if you're interested, you should read about lenskis e.coli experiments.

Basically, natural selection works on populations in ways which fixate beneficial mutations and out-compete detrimental mutations.

To try to explain it, let's say we have 6 billion people on Earth. Some are slow runners, some are fast. So let's say the fast ones join their highschool track team. Well, only certain people on the track team will make it to finals and will race at a state level. Competition essentially removes the slow and concentrates the fast.

Ultimately, by the time the Olympics come around, Hussain bolt is out there defeating all the competition.

But how frequently are people as fast as Hussain bolt born? Maybe just once in a billion? The probability is low, but that doesn't prevent people like Hussain bolt from reaching the Olympics.

Just the same in genetics, the probability of beneficial mutations might only be 1 in 100,000. But nature produces a form of competition which concentrates the beneficial mutations. 

And ultimately, those beneficial mutations accumulate to produce more and more fit populations.

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

In lenskis experiments, he and his team took 12 populations of bacteria and put them in beakers of limited resources for survival. Limited resources result in a form of natural competition. Like there only being one gold trophy for track runners. The goal produces a drive for competitors.

Then when the resources were used up and the prize was won, a small percentage of the bacteria were moved to a new beaker with more resources to repeat the competition. The older generation of bacteria were frozen.

After several successive generations (thousands of generations), old populations were thawed and put in competitive environments with later generations. And time and time again, newer generations out-competed the older.

How is this possible? Well, the genomes of these populations are being examined throughout the course of the experiment and DNA analysis shows the accumulation of fixated beneficial mutations, which are increasing fitness of the bacteria. The bacteria is changing size, it's developing new metabolic functions, it's able to survive and compete in ways that it could not before, as a product of mutations and selection driven by limited resources.

And these bacteria have undergone billions of mutations over the course of about 30 years. And of those billions of mutations, maybe only a couple hundred have been beneficially fixated mutations. But regardless, those beneficial mutations are locked in and retained generation after generation, while detrimental mutations disappear as they lose out on resources and ultimately fail in competitive fitness.

 

So the mutations may be random, but the process favors the strong. And all of this is observable both in laboratories and in nature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Another way to try to describe it is like doing a puzzle. You start out with hundreds of puzzle pieces and you make countless efforts to try to fit pieces together. Most attempts are futile. Some might even be completely random attempts. But as the pieces inevitably come together, those pieces stay together for the duration of the process. And the stuck together pieces ultimately accumulate until the puzzle is done.

With beneficial mutations, they may be rare, but when they happen, they essentially get stuck in the genome. And they accumulate, producing an indefinite progression of increased fitness.

Whereas detrimental mutations cause populations to lose resources and to essentially go extinct, thereby deleting the detrimental mutation from a population (a population can't mutate if it dies).

Neutral mutations just kind of hang out and don't do anything 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

lenskis e.coli experiments.

will read bout it in more detail.

thank you for the straightforward explanations (unlike many others I've read..), made it easy to understand the perspective.

 

10 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Hussain bolt is out there defeating all the competition.

this killed me lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

I find myself oddly satisfied with the latest and greatest.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940.2015.1063491

A critique of the polish zachelmie "trackway" which predates tiktaalik.

Now, whether the zachelmie trackways are or are not of tetrapod origin, is irrelevant to the theory of evolution in the grand scheme of things, as both tiktaalik and the tracks are similarly dated and are originating from claimed morphologically similar species. 

But, the problem with the zachelmie tracks is a lack of actual bone material to clarify on how they were produced. If they were tracks, would they be from a Tetrapod? How derived would it be? Would it have fish traits like scales and fins?

But here we have a publication, essentially making a case for why they actually aren't footprints at all. Detailing obscurities related to the shapes of the "tracks", the directionality of the "tracks" width of the "tracks" and more. Ultimately, the trackway are being attributed to "feeding traces" of fish.

It's quite a satisfying read that I think further demonstrates the need for bone material to make a claim that tetrapods appeared some 15 million years earlier than previously thought. And if bone material were found, that would be great, but the "tracks" being from an individual locality with no bone material, slightly earlier than anticipated leads me to be skeptical of it's origin to begin with. And here we are.

 

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Questions such as:

What is the point of theory of Evolution?

Are neglected and are not encouraged.

For the answer proves that it is pointless.

Academic Scholars and Scientist are in agreement that questions such as: What is the point of theory of evolution? Has only one answer, "it has no purpose".

People that indulge in the study and have complete belief in theory of evolution are not Creationist.

Creationist and Evolutions are not the same.

Theory of Evolution is the most useless, irrelevant discussion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 5/17/2011 at 11:38 PM, iSilurian said:

I guess, ill make this here. My previous topic on morals condones the theory of evolution, and im sure there are many people here who would automatically reject my concepts just because I use evolution within the topic.

Also before I continue, if anyone here wants to argue against me, or try to refute my statements, I will only accept scientific published peer reviewed research.. Ths means no random youtube videos, no random websites designed by highschool students etc.

basic

So I would like to present a few things about the theory of evolution that, I imagine people may not be familiar with, just to put some ideas out there. If anyone would like to associate their concepts in faith with it, that would fine as well.

The basic theory of evolution, im sure most people have a general understanding of. It is defined by mutations within our DNA, which are manipulated by natural selection, and evolution occurs in communities.

One mght ask how people have come to the conclusion that this theory is true. Well, mutations within DNA are observable, so it is well established that living things do genetically change, and genetics manipulate the proteins that define our morphology (things like bone structure). And so it is known that beings will physically change over time, albeit very very slowly. Beyond that, the concept of natural selection is just survival of the fittest, and the fittest organisms proceed to the next generation of living things.

Just a few examples:

CCR5 mutation which promotes HIV resistance in humans

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8751444

LDL receptor protein mutation, and increased bone density in swedish families

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12015390

Nylonase phrame shift mutation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6585807

Mutations within the Italian wall lizard which have brought about morphological changes

Vervust. B., Grbac. I., Damme. R., Differences in morphology, performance and behaviour between recently diverged populations of Podarcis sicula mirror differences in predation pressure, Nov 2007, Oikos, v. 116, p 1343-1352

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

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

a little more in depth

A little more in depth, there are concepts regarding the fossil record. I personally do work quite a bit with the fossil record, and I will say, there is in fact a succession of fossils in the Earth over time. What I mean by this is, in the past (450 million years ago), in ancient strata, all you will find are fish bones. then around 400 mya you find fish with legs and other sorts of amphibians. then around 300 mya you find reptiles, lizards and snakes etc. 200 mya you find large reptiles like dinosaurs and you find...reptiles with mammal traits. then around 150 mya you find mammals with reptile traits and you find reptiles with bird traits. then under 100 mya you find things like full mammals and full birds, and all living things prior.

And so, a succession of animals can be seen to change over time in the fossils.

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

complex summation

Ok so, the things I have mentioned before are simple basics, most people are familiar with them, but the actual real reason scientists support the theory of evolution more extensively comes from things that I will mention below.

Now, the fossil record, if you track morphological changes in the fossil record, you can create something called a phylogenetic tree. This is basically your standard scientific tree of life. The way its made is, ~ If an organism contains trait X go to step five. If an organism does not contain trait X go to step 2.

Its kind of like an organised way of programing a tv :P, its the same method. I hope that makes sense.

So, basically, the trees that are made from studies like the fossil record, match the trees made from things like genetics, and comparative anatomy of living things, and ecologic studies etc etc. And so, it is known that there is factually a direct relationship between the fossil succession, and the genetics within all DNA based organisms.

More specifically, on the genetic phylogenetic tree, the tree is made in the same way that other trees are made, but its like... If the sequence AAB exists proceed to step five, if the sequence AAC exists, proceed to step 2. The tree is defined by differences created by mutations within the organism. With this said, its understood that, things arent simply similar in DNA just because theyve been created to look similar. Things are similar in DNA because genetically, the mutations and alterations of DNA have proceeded identically with the mutations of the fossil record and have created a tree that defines the traits that living things hold.

I hope this makes sense, im not exactly a professor, if anyone doesnt understand or has questions, feel free to ask.

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

a little more advanced

The summation of studies and their relative phylogenetic trees is proof that there is a relationship between the fossil record and anatomy of living things and DNA. and how each has transitioned overtime, but just for a little more icing on the top, id like to talk a bit about enndogenous retroviruses.

Endogenous retroviruses are essentially, viruses that insert ultimately have their genetic makeup inserted into our DNA. When living things are attacked by these viruses, the genes that contain the DNA of the viruses, depending on what cells they attack within living things, can be passed on to our children. and our children pass it to their children etc etc, just like all DNA is passed on to our progeny. Ok so, now, if you think about, a family tree. That of a kin of people. distant cousins and second cousins and third cousins and second aunts and uncles etc etc, all will be on small distant branches of a family tree. Whereas parents, first brothers and sisters, will be on primary branches.

With that understanding, lets say I am attacked by an ERV. ok so now, my children will have the ERV signature within them. Now lets say one of my children are attacked by an ERV. now my grandchildren will have the ERV signiture of me, and my childrens ERV within them. so my grandchildren will have 2 signature, and my children will have 1 signature. and so on and so on. They add up over the generations.

Now, with this said, we can determine the relatedness of living things based on the number of ERV signatures they have within them. For example, I can tell my grandchildren are closer related to eachother than they are to me, because they have more ERVs.

This is a really really simple way of describing this, but it makes sense and its proven.

Now, how does this relate to evolution? Well, ERVs are found in living things, including humans and chimps and all sorts of mammals etc etc. So what does it mean? It means we share a common ancestor.

And not only that, the phylogenetic tree made from ERV traces, directly matches phylogenetic trees made in comparative anatomy, and the fossil record and ecologic studies etc.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16830071

ok so, this is rough start, obviously there is a lot more to say, but this I think is a good ice breaker for discussion.

I have made a thread of evolution on general and theology where I am confused please help me answer my question. I like you alos agree with evolution and Big Bang 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, hasanhh said:

But, would "neutral mutations" affect RNA expressions?

I believe the answer to your question, is that mutations in DNA will always alter your mRNA, however your mRNA may or may not sequence different amino acids, depending on the type of mutations.

For example, in a silent mutation, you end up without any changes to your synthesized protein. So in that sense, your expression would remain the same, despite alterations to your DNA and RNA.

Neutral mutations however can still be considered neutral, even if there is a change in say, the morphological qualities of a population or even an individual. As a neutral mutation is considered neutral based on the fitness of the population, and not necessarily on whether or not proteins have changed.

That's my guess at your question.

What did you have in mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Biology has greatly changed since I had it 60 years ago.

I need to take another course on it and a class on current genetic theory.

Thanks for the info input.

Yea, it's been ten years since my biology courses. Had to dust off my brain a bit for that one lol. Geology and paleontology come much easier.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • Veteran Member

@iCambrian  @iCenozoic

Here is a good, 26 minute video on Permian paleontology. Some on invertabrates.

https://www.dw.com/en/the-tyrannosaurus-of-tambach-dietharz/av-50896551 

Some keywords:

Thuringia (area in central Germany near Czech Republic)

Bromacher Quarry 

branchisaur

seymouria

orbates pabsti

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Moderators
6 hours ago, hasanhh said:

:egg:"l think you may like this, @starlight , from your recent experience." :woot:

https://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/cretaceous-legged-snake-07829.html

From what l can learn, the jugal bone forms part of the eye socket.

You seriously think I would open the link? :shifty:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Of Course.

Your medical curiosty.

hahahah... I will have to admit you are right. As soon as I pressed submit I went to the link to take a look which was then followed by a google image search as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

Evolution as a theory does not go against intelligent design. Also the scientific language needs to be as precise as possible. Evolution as a scientific theory is far from accurate.

I can observe two objects of different mass dropped in a vacuum chamber. I can accurately measure the speed distance and time an calculate acceleration. I can then come up with a scientific law which states objects are accelerated towards the Earth at 9.8 m/s/s. I can then state that the theory of gravity is a good explanation for the observation. And do many more observations and experimentation to increase my understanding. But I haven't proven gravity exists. It's still a theory but a useful one.

Now compare this with the accuracy of the observations that form the basis of the theory of evolution. 

Also consider the following questions:

How useful is the theory of evolution. ?

How does this theory disprove intelligent design ?

Why is evolution theory propogated as fact and why is it used by opponents of intelligent design ?

 

Edited by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

:hahaha:"A great way to start-off this morning."

2 hours ago, Warilla said:

Evolution as a theory does not go against intelligent design.

YES lT DOES !   I.D. was contrived to counter Darwin's model.

2 hours ago, Warilla said:

I can then come up with a scientific law which states objects are accelerated towards the Earth at 9.8 m/s/s. I can then state that the theory of gravity is a good explanation for the observation.

:woot: Galileo Galilei showed objects fall at the same rate and also accelerate(use of planks and rolling balls). But Galilean Relitivity is an observation, not a theory (for one thing, it has no predictive value). Newton conceptualized a theory which included the movement of most planets and predicted the return of comets.(Halley's work). Cavendish figured out how to measure the gravitational constant. lt is all 'built up'. But . . . you cannot state the acceleration of gravity near the Earth's surface is  9.8 (which is not strictly true as it varies) without explaining why it is 9,8 and not some other value and still have any kind of theory. 

 

3 hours ago, Warilla said:

How useful is the theory of evolution. ?

How does this theory disprove intelligent design ?

Why is evolution theory propogated as fact and why is it used by opponents of intelligent design ?

Evolution answers the early 19th Century question: we (Man) can alter the form and breed of dogs, cattle, sheep and such in a known way, so . . . is there some mechanism that explains why there are variations in nature?

Like l wrote above, I.D. is a contrivance.

Evolution can currently be characterizd as a "fact" because there is no model that displaces it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Veteran Member

At this point in time, this is more astronomical than biological. Especially since this is a recent observation, but it does add an observation into the time scales of bio-evolution.

Carbon Gas Clouds

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20191216_34 

Last 3 paragraphs

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 11/29/2019 at 11:37 AM, Warilla said:

Evolution as a scientific theory is far from accurate.

 

That is why they call it a "theory". It has very large blank spaces yet its factoids are laughingly used to go up against intelligent design. It can be easily reassembled into much better and far more compatible theories. But to be honest even then it may not be the accurate truth. An example of the reassembling flexibility is the new "aliens are responsible for life" theory becoming increasingly popular on media. Obviously because its hard for even the average Joe to accept that life, scientific laws and all reality built themselves into such a complex and awesome existence on their own.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
56 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

The outlines of a narrative.

Better description?

Ok let me try to explain.

Sir Isaac Newton discovered us the laws of motion and of gravity. However his laws could not keep up as science traversed into newer realms and Einstein came up with the theory of relativity as matter and energy's nature came into view. Then as things went on and now we quantum physics which has a much larger jurisdiction and is "pure" science (not just a theory. However Newtons laws of motion are still used (when dealing with low velocity and simpler scenarios). Einstein's theory of relativity is still considered a yard stick among physicists and it has its uses even if the focus is shifted to quantum physics and pure science.

Darwin's theory of evolution though is in a particularly bad state. The way it exists today its doubtful even Darwin would completely agree. He had his evidences and used his tools available to him back then. Others took over his work and they have been trying hard but the aged >>theory<< simply can not keep up. It has its astonishing scientific evidences and all but all of it on its own is like a skeleton made of straws bearing the crushing weight of modern scrutiny. Computer simulations can not work with it, this theory, unless extensively helped. Its that odd scientific theory which does not work on any principles of mathematics e.g. you can not take its scientific data to derive mathematical equations (and hence its failure at computer simulations). Mathematics is the language of the universe and the key to the door of scientific knowledge. Using mathematical data we come up with plots, graphs, maps, (and pie charts for Americans) then we put it to good use, interpolate, extrapolate, and learn more. No such thing with the theory of evolution. And this is but one problem with it.

Please keep in mind and remember the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution aka Darwinism before someone wrongly writes something silly like "you don't believe in evolution??" in their reply. Its not the scientific data proving evolution in some instances, rather its how this data has been absurdly knitted into the pretentious rags still worn by most atheists.

Edited by The Green Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
52 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:

the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution aka Darwinism

Are you refering to al-Bari -(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). and this Real difference to Darwin's suggested answer to the early 19th Century question as to "if man can alter plants and animals, is there a Nature mecahanism that does the same?"

Mathematics is a language. Do you know why?

Computer simulations -rather than extrapolations- are still 'garbage in --> garbage out'.

And l know what Newton is used for. Example: that after the accidental discovery of Uranus, it was used to find Neptune.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/29/2019 at 1:37 AM, Warilla said:

Evolution as a theory does not go against intelligent design. Also the scientific language needs to be as precise as possible. Evolution as a scientific theory is far from accurate.

I can observe two objects of different mass dropped in a vacuum chamber. I can accurately measure the speed distance and time an calculate acceleration. I can then come up with a scientific law which states objects are accelerated towards the Earth at 9.8 m/s/s. I can then state that the theory of gravity is a good explanation for the observation. And do many more observations and experimentation to increase my understanding. But I haven't proven gravity exists. It's still a theory but a useful one.

Now compare this with the accuracy of the observations that form the basis of the theory of evolution. 

Also consider the following questions:

How useful is the theory of evolution. ?

How does this theory disprove intelligent design ?

Why is evolution theory propogated as fact and why is it used by opponents of intelligent design ?

 

The founders of intelligent design were biblical creationists.

They made efforts to promote the Genesis creation story as an alternate theory to darwinian evolution.

This being the reason that scientists of all religions use it in opposition to intelligent design. It is a conflict between biblical creationism and science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
23 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

~80 genes, eukaryotic cells, microbes   --very short read

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20200116_02/ 

 

"The group says they believe the microbes use those tentacles to envelop other microbes into their cells."

 

endosymbiosis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...