Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 143

Thread: How did the DNA change over the years

  1. #1 How did the DNA change over the years 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    How did the DNA change over the years from fish to humans? Just curious.


    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    How did the DNA change over the years from fish to humans?
    Extensively.


    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    How did the DNA change over the years from fish to humans? Just curious.
    Random mutations (cosmic rays, etc.) plus survival of the fittest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    How did the DNA change over the years from fish to humans? Just curious.
    Random mutations (cosmic rays, etc.) plus survival of the fittest.
    That would be only the start of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    So every time a new type of animal was evolved it was due to these cosmic rays and mutations? And each step was in a direction towards humans? Seems rather strange that the mutations only made the steps towards a human but not ever another direction.
    Last edited by cosmictraveler; September 17th, 2014 at 07:53 PM.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman pzkpfw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    79
    What do you mean "not ever another direction"?

    There are many many many species on Earth. You make it sound like only humans evolved.

    Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    I understand that but I was curious in that humans evolved from other life forms with different DNA than humans have. It just is interesting to me that this DNA evolution came up with humans after all the changes DNA went through.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman pzkpfw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    79
    All current life forms evolved from previous life forms. Why do you single out humans? I still don't understand the point you're trying to make.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I understand that but I was curious in that humans evolved from other life forms with different DNA than humans have. It just is interesting to me that this DNA evolution came up with humans after all the changes DNA went through.
    I heard a scientist say, "we have evolved along with DNA and now we understand DNA so DNA has come to understand itself". Something like that, but the punchline is correct "DNA has come to understand itself".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Comparative genomics Tax plot… compare different species to one another.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/genome/guide/human/index.shtml


    The ultimate evo fantasy.

    Cut, past, go to page bottom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    zebrafish to humans….


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703927/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    zebrafish to humans….


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703927/


    “Comparison to the human reference genome shows that approximately 70% of human genes have at least one obvious zebrafish orthologue.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703927/#!po=19.2308
    Wow, and this over 600 million years. How can that be when the fish genome would have accumulated 1000 times more deleterious mutations than needed to survive. Ohh wait forgot about the “Highly conserved paradigm”.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    zebrafish to humans….


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703927/


    “Comparison to the human reference genome shows that approximately 70% of human genes have at least one obvious zebrafish orthologue.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703927/#!po=19.2308
    Wow, and this over 600 million years. How can that be when the fish genome would have accumulated 1000 times more deleterious mutations than needed to survive. Ohh wait forgot about the “Highly conserved paradigm”.
    GTC, this is well below your usual standard of contribution. Mere sneering like this, without argument, won't advance your point of view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    So why then aren't all fish changed in some way? Since all fish get the same amount of cosmic radiation and mutations, why didn't they all develop into something different?
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    So why then aren't all fish changed in some way? Since all fish get the same amount of cosmic radiation and mutations, why didn't they all develop into something different?
    Who is saying fish haven't changed over time when the selection pressures necessary to elicit changes are present?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Not all fish became amphibians only a select few so why not many of them instead of just a few? It just seems strange that when there are so many types of fish in the ocean and only a few evolve into amphibians that those few are selected and none others.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Not all fish became amphibians only a select few so why not many of them instead of just a few? It just seems strange that when there are so many types of fish in the ocean and only a few evolve into amphibians that those few are selected and none others.
    Say you plant a tree in your backyard. It will grow branches. Some will grow into huge branches with many other smaller branches coming off of it. Regardless, all of those branches are still connected to the trunk. The trunk still exists even though many other branches have grown off it. In that same way, you do not cease to exists, nor your family line, simply because your cousins came to be. Even if they marry someone of other ethnicities and they change physically or culturally over time, they are still related to you and you still exist.

    There is no requirement for an ancestor to die off or to change simply because later generations did.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Not all fish became amphibians only a select few so why not many of them instead of just a few? It just seems strange that when there are so many types of fish in the ocean and only a few evolve into amphibians that those few are selected and none others.
    On the contrary. It's all about creatures competing for niches in which they can succeed. That is a driver of diversity throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. So having some fraction of species change, to exploit some new environment that the others can't, is exactly what you should expect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Not all fish became amphibians only a select few so why not many of them instead of just a few? It just seems strange that when there are so many types of fish in the ocean and only a few evolve into amphibians that those few are selected and none others.
    On the contrary. It's all about creatures competing for niches in which they can succeed. That is a driver of diversity throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. So having some fraction of species change, to exploit some new environment that the others can't, is exactly what you should expect.
    Darwin's finches are a good example of this speciation. A niche is unfilled and an organism attempts to move into that niche because it is rich in resources. Only the ones adapted to survive with do so and they will be changed by pressures in that new niche. They no longer compete with the previous species from which they evolved and, thus, there is no need for the previous species to go extinct or change if the pressures on them remain constant.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Sorry exchemist… had a bad day and was feeling extra sarcastic.
    On the contrary. It's all about creatures competing for niches in which they can succeed. That is a driver of diversity throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. So having some fraction of species change, to exploit some new environment that the others can't, is exactly what you should expect.



    A problem arises. The human genome is also very similar to amphibian's genome.


    The question here is the genome. In resent human history (last 200k years) the human genome has remained basically unchanged. Human diversity studies show surprising similarities despite 200 millennium. This suggests a recent human ancestry.


    Now about the fish and human similarity. The only evolutionary explanation is that parts of the genome of the fish and human have been miraculously preserved and that on the order of 60,000 millennium.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    The only evolutionary explanation is that parts of the genome of the fish and human have been miraculously preserved and that on the order of 60,000 millennium.
    Argument from incredulity.
    Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Darwin's finches are a good example of this speciation. A niche is unfilled and an organism attempts to move into that niche because it is rich in resources. Only the ones adapted to survive with do so and they will be changed by pressures in that new niche. They no longer compete with the previous species from which they evolved and, thus, there is no need for the previous species to go extinct or change if the pressures on them remain constant.


    The only problem is that the finch species on the island are intermingled. One was supposed to change while the other group did not (side by side). All the species are viable in that environment eating basically the same foods.

    At the time, even Darwin did not make note of a particular (natural selection) while he was on the island.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Darwin's finches are a good example of this speciation. A niche is unfilled and an organism attempts to move into that niche because it is rich in resources. Only the ones adapted to survive with do so and they will be changed by pressures in that new niche. They no longer compete with the previous species from which they evolved and, thus, there is no need for the previous species to go extinct or change if the pressures on them remain constant.


    The only problem is that the finch species on the island are intermingled. One was supposed to change while the other group did not (side by side). All the species are viable in that environment eating basically the same foods.

    At the time, even Darwin did not make note of a particular (natural selection) while he was on the island.
    How long does evolution take?
    How long did Darwin stay on the island?
    Was he there long enough to see evolution in action?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Not all fish became amphibians only a select few so why not many of them instead of just a few? It just seems strange that when there are so many types of fish in the ocean and only a few evolve into amphibians that those few are selected and none others.
    On the contrary. It's all about creatures competing for niches in which they can succeed. That is a driver of diversity throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. So having some fraction of species change, to exploit some new environment that the others can't, is exactly what you should expect.
    Darwin's finches are a good example of this speciation. A niche is unfilled and an organism attempts to move into that niche because it is rich in resources. Only the ones adapted to survive with do so and they will be changed by pressures in that new niche. They no longer compete with the previous species from which they evolved and, thus, there is no need for the previous species to go extinct or change if the pressures on them remain constant.
    Somehow your description of how evolution works is not quite right. You seem to be Lamarkian as Paleoichneum would say.
    " they will be changed by pressures " is Lamarck's idea. Genes do not change under pressure.
    "They no longer compete with the previous species from which they evolved" is not a correct statement either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    All the species are viable in that environment eating basically the same foods.
    "Basically" but not "exactly".
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Was he there long enough to see evolution in action?

    In the Darwin Finches the genome is remarkably the same. Some of the species have also been noted to interbreed. Minor changes in short term is obviously noted as epigenetic.
    Genetic pathways (epimutations) among species can produce and have produced different beak morphology.
    Mallarino, R. et al. 2012. Closely related bird species demonstrate flexibility between beak morphology and underlying developmental programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (40): 16222-16227.

    Species-specific epimutations were significantly overrepresented in these pathways. As environmental factors are known to result in heritable changes in the epigenome, it is possible that epigenetic changes contribute to the molecular basis of the evolution of Darwin’s finches. Epigenetics and the Evolution of Darwin

    I am not going to give a presentation of epigenetic paradigm here. But it is short term and involving existing pathways in the genome. Defiantly not classic darwinian evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    All the species are viable in that environment eating basically the same foods.
    "Basically" but not "exactly".
    GTC have you ever tried to balance a ruler over a pen try to find the point of balance? You'll find the slightest change either way makes on side come up and the other down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Was he there long enough to see evolution in action?

    In the Darwin Finches the genome is remarkably the same. Some of the species have also been noted to interbreed. Minor changes in short term is obviously noted as epigenetic.
    Genetic pathways (epimutations) among species can produce and have produced different beak morphology.
    Mallarino, R. et al. 2012. Closely related bird species demonstrate flexibility between beak morphology and underlying developmental programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (40): 16222-16227.

    Species-specific epimutations were significantly overrepresented in these pathways. As environmental factors are known to result in heritable changes in the epigenome, it is possible that epigenetic changes contribute to the molecular basis of the evolution of Darwin’s finches. Epigenetics and the Evolution of Darwin

    I am not going to give a presentation of epigenetic paradigm here. But it is short term and involving existing pathways in the genome. Defiantly not classic darwinian evolution.
    Was Darwin there long enough to see evolution in action? For a moment I thought you would see the light!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    In my humble opinion… since epigenetic changes can happen in a single generation. It is not darwinism. Darwin would never have suspected it.
    Darwinism is a chameleon but it cannot grok the epigenetic paradigm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Not all fish became amphibians only a select few so why not many of them instead of just a few? It just seems strange that when there are so many types of fish in the ocean and only a few evolve into amphibians that those few are selected and none others.
    On the contrary. It's all about creatures competing for niches in which they can succeed. That is a driver of diversity throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. So having some fraction of species change, to exploit some new environment that the others can't, is exactly what you should expect.
    Darwin's finches are a good example of this speciation. A niche is unfilled and an organism attempts to move into that niche because it is rich in resources. Only the ones adapted to survive with do so and they will be changed by pressures in that new niche. They no longer compete with the previous species from which they evolved and, thus, there is no need for the previous species to go extinct or change if the pressures on them remain constant.
    Somehow your description of how evolution works is not quite right. You seem to be Lamarkian as Paleoichneum would say.
    " they will be changed by pressures " is Lamarck's idea. Genes do not change under pressure.
    "They no longer compete with the previous species from which they evolved" is not a correct statement either.
    Lamarck said that use of an apparatus caused it to changed. I'm saying environmental pressures will select against organisms not suited to an environment, leaving those with the better adaptations to breed. I never mentioned genes so I'm not sure what you're actually talking about.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Not all fish became amphibians only a select few so why not many of them instead of just a few? It just seems strange that when there are so many types of fish in the ocean and only a few evolve into amphibians that those few are selected and none others.
    On the contrary. It's all about creatures competing for niches in which they can succeed. That is a driver of diversity throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. So having some fraction of species change, to exploit some new environment that the others can't, is exactly what you should expect.
    Darwin's finches are a good example of this speciation. A niche is unfilled and an organism attempts to move into that niche because it is rich in resources. Only the ones adapted to survive with do so and they will be changed by pressures in that new niche. They no longer compete with the previous species from which they evolved and, thus, there is no need for the previous species to go extinct or change if the pressures on them remain constant.
    Somehow your description of how evolution works is not quite right. You seem to be Lamarkian as Paleoichneum would say.
    " they will be changed by pressures " is Lamarck's idea. Genes do not change under pressure.
    "They no longer compete with the previous species from which they evolved" is not a correct statement either.
    Lamarck said that use of an apparatus caused it to changed. I'm saying environmental pressures will select against organisms not suited to an environment, leaving those with the better adaptations to breed. I never mentioned genes so I'm not sure what you're actually talking about.
    I know you understand evolution but I find you aren't expressing it correctly, even now you say "pressure will select". Pressure does not select. In fact I'm looking for the perfect way of saying what you are trying to say.
    Are you using pressure as an apparatus? That would be Lamarkian under your own definition then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    ...what?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Going by the the description of Evolution in Wikipedia (evolving) this sentence seemed pertinent:
    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]
    Even that doesn't quite satisfy me.
    Even mutants would have to survive the natural selection test.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    ...what?
    I am looking for the perfected description ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    How did DNA change? Study Population genetics.
    Population genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Population genetics is the study of the distributions and changes of allele frequency in a population, as the population is subject to the four main evolutionary processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. It also takes into account the factors of recombination, population subdivision and population structure. Studies in this branch of biology examine such phenomena as adaptation and speciation.
    Population genetics was a vital ingredient in the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Its primary founders were Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane and R. A. Fisher, who also laid the foundations for the related discipline of quantitative genetics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    ...what?
    I am looking for the perfected description ...
    Description on what? You just linked to descriptions of evolution and adaptation, which seem to suit the discussion pretty aptly.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    ...what?
    I am looking for the perfected description ...
    Description on what? You just linked to descriptions of evolution and adaptation, which seem to suit the discussion pretty aptly.
    Yes that might be so but how do we say it without having to quote Wikipedia all the time? What is the simplest but correct description?
    I haven't gone to the link on "Modern evolutionary synthesis" yet. Maybe the answer is in there, but I'm need to do other things today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Again, description of what? Evolution? It's never going to be a "simple" explanation because the process is multi-faceted. If you want to be clear and accurate, you probably won't be succinct.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Again, description of what? Evolution? It's never going to be a "simple" explanation because the process is multi-faceted. If you want to be clear and accurate, you probably won't be succinct.
    It will need at least 4 sentences to define it at the moment.

    So what part of population genetics does GTCethos not understand or accept?
    Population genetics is the study of the distributions and changes of allele frequency in a population, as the population is subject to the four main evolutionary processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. It also takes into account the factors of recombination, population subdivision and population structure. Studies in this branch of biology examine such phenomena as adaptation and speciation.
    There are a few important ideas there, so which one do you not accept?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    There are a few important ideas there, so which one do you not accept?I have seen everyone of these propositions.



    It is not a matter of which ones we accept, it is a matter of which ones are supported by some kind of molecular mechanism for evolution.


    I have a question. What is the molecular mechanism for evolution? Is evolution only epigenetic or allele concentrations?


    How do those long chain genes get there in the first place? Novel rearrangement and implementation of existing ones does not create them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    There are a few important ideas there, so which one do you not accept?I have seen everyone of these propositions.



    It is not a matter of which ones we accept, it is a matter of which ones are supported by some kind of molecular mechanism for evolution.


    I have a question. What is the molecular mechanism for evolution? Is evolution only epigenetic or allele concentrations?


    How do those long chain genes get there in the first place? Novel rearrangement and implementation of existing ones does not create them.
    That sounds like a question a study of fruit fly might answer. Watch them mutate and see what happened to their DNA before and after.
    I'm sure it has been done, it would just be a matter of finding the paper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    I'm still unsure about how the DNA change into another species just because they are trying to adapt to a new environment. How does anything make a new DNA for itself besides mutations, which could mutate in many directions, to become more proficient for its new niche.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I'm still unsure about how the DNA change into another species just because they are trying to adapt to a new environment. How does anything make a new DNA for itself besides mutations, which could mutate in many directions, to become more proficient for its new niche.
    It will be hit and miss. The misses are fails but the hits are improvements, adaptations, mutations, or sometimes even new species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    I’m still unsure about how the DNA change into another species just because they are trying to adapt to a new environment.



    Every evolutionist who ever lived has the same issue.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I'm still unsure about how the DNA change into another species just because they are trying to adapt to a new environment. How does anything make a new DNA for itself besides mutations, which could mutate in many directions, to become more proficient for its new niche.
    It will be hit and miss. The misses are fails but the hits are improvements, adaptations, mutations, or sometimes even new species.
    Sounds like random chance. So you believe probability is the answer?


    Would you accept Haldane’s 1 beneficial adaptation in 300 generations?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I'm still unsure about how the DNA change into another species just because they are trying to adapt to a new environment. How does anything make a new DNA for itself besides mutations, which could mutate in many directions, to become more proficient for its new niche.
    It will be hit and miss. The misses are fails but the hits are improvements, adaptations, mutations, or sometimes even new species.
    Sounds like random chance. So you believe probability is the answer?


    Would you accept Haldane’s 1 beneficial adaptation in 300 generations?
    Is that in each line of breeding individuals there is one beneficial mutation for every 300 generations, so if you had a breeding population of 3,000 you have 10 beneficial mutations in the population per generation. Is that how you see it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    How did the DNA change over the years from fish to humans? Just curious.
    The first thing you have to understand about fish, is that, in quite a few species of fish, the females lay huge bundles of eggs every time they try to reproduce. If even half of those eggs were reaching maturity and laying eggs of their own, the population of fish would explode. Clearly their average survival rate is a lot smaller than that of a modern human. Probably a very low percent of them make it. I'd want to go with a maximum of 5%, but that is just a guess. Some probably get eaten by bigger fish, but probably most of them simply can't find enough food and so they starve.

    Under those circumstances, there are lots of opportunities for mutations to emerge.

    Now consider if you lived in a world different from the one we live in today. Suppose that all animal life lives in the sea. In the tide pools and very shallow areas, most of the animals cannot survive, or even move around because they have fins instead of legs and gills instead of lungs. It's dangerous for them to even attempt it.

    Consequently, there is a gadzooks of free food sitting there uneaten. Also the leading predators can't go there (Since all animals can't go there yet.) So, if you happen to be born with a fin that can also be used as some kind of half-workable leg to crawl around in those shallow waters, all of a sudden, your odds of reaching maturity and being able to reproduce have gone from 5% to something more like 95% (although that also is just a guess.)

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    So why then aren't all fish changed in some way? Since all fish get the same amount of cosmic radiation and mutations, why didn't they all develop into something different?
    Only the first ones saw any benefit. The first ones got all that food and safety to themselves.

    But an unfortunate thing follows when a species becomes too well adapted to its environment. It starts breeding like crazy and soon overpopulation ruins everything. Once the shallow tide pools were overpopulated with descendants of that first lucky mutant, there was no longer any benefit to be had for future mutants.

    At least not mutants with the same mutation. If a creature mutates an even better leg, then maybe they'll be able to go further inland, where there is still some free food waiting.
    Last edited by kojax; September 18th, 2014 at 09:03 PM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Is that in each line of breeding individuals there is one beneficial mutation for every 300 generations, so if you had a breeding population of 3,000 you have 10 beneficial mutations in the population per generation. Is that how you see it?



    In a real evolution model there are mutations and mutation cost. Haldane (a evolution authority to this day) developed a statistic that represents the fixing of mutations in a population. This fixing of a trait is essential to setting evolution change to that population.


    If you say that a generation is 20 years, it would take 300 generations x 20 years or 6000 years to fix one beneficial mutation.


    By the way Haldane is not a creationist….

    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    How did the DNA change over the years from fish to humans? Just curious.
    The first thing you have to understand about fish, is that, in quite a few species of fish, the females lay huge bundles of eggs every time they try to reproduce. If even half of those eggs were reaching maturity and laying eggs of their own, the population of fish would explode. Clearly their average survival rate is a lot smaller than that of a modern human. Probably a very low percent of them make it. I'd want to go with a maximum of 5%, but that is just a guess. Some probably get eaten by bigger fish, but probably most of them simply can't find enough food and so they starve.

    Under those circumstances, there are lots of opportunities for mutations to emerge.

    Now consider if you lived in a world different from the one we live in today. Suppose that all animal life lives in the sea. In the tide pools and very shallow areas, most of the animals cannot survive, or even move around because they have fins instead of legs and gills instead of lungs. It's dangerous for them to even attempt it.

    Consequently, there is a gadzooks of free food sitting there uneaten. Also the leading predators can't go there (Since all animals can't go there yet.) So, if you happen to be born with a fin that can also be used as some kind of half-workable leg to crawl around in those shallow waters, all of a sudden, your odds of reaching maturity and being able to reproduce have gone from 5% to something more like 95% (although that also is just a guess.)

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    So why then aren't all fish changed in some way? Since all fish get the same amount of cosmic radiation and mutations, why didn't they all develop into something different?
    Only the first ones saw any benefit. The first ones got all that food and safety to themselves.

    But an unfortunate thing follows when a species becomes too well adapted to its environment. It starts breeding like crazy and soon overpopulation ruins everything. Once the shallow tide pools were overpopulated with descendants of that first lucky mutant, there was no longer any benefit to be had for future mutants. Or well....unless maybe they mutate into having lungs, or better legs and are thereby able to go even further inland.
    So goes the magic kingdom in Orlando.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Is that in each line of breeding individuals there is one beneficial mutation for every 300 generations, so if you had a breeding population of 3,000 you have 10 beneficial mutations in the population per generation. Is that how you see it?



    In a real evolution model there are mutations and mutation cost. Haldane (a evolution authority to this day) developed a statistic that represents the fixing of mutations in a population. This fixing of a trait is essential to setting evolution change to that population.


    If you say that a generation is 20 years, it would take 300 generations x 20 years or 6000 years to fix one beneficial mutation.


    By the way Haldane is not a creationist….

    Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly.
    Note all the errors he made "He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly."

    I don't think you should quote him unless you take the errors into account.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Note all the errors he made "
    He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly.”



    "I don't think you should quote him unless you take the errors into account." you


    Strange but this looks like the same criticism posted on talkorigins.com, just saying.


    All good science needs criticism and Haldane is highly scrutinized. Remin has a lengthy paper verifying Haldane’s statistics ( I read it myself and it seems reasonable). Take it for what it is worth. There has been several peer reviewed papers claiming Haldane is correct and of course he is still considered an authority in the field.


    Still there remanes a cost to fixation and mutation in the form of deleterious mutations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Note all the errors he made "
    He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly.”



    "I don't think you should quote him unless you take the errors into account." you


    Strange but this looks like the same criticism posted on talkorigins.com, just saying.


    All good science needs criticism and Haldane is highly scrutinized. Remin has a lengthy paper verifying Haldane’s statistics ( I read it myself and it seems reasonable). Take it for what it is worth. There has been several peer reviewed papers claiming Haldane is correct and of course he is still considered an authority in the field.


    Still there remanes a cost to fixation and mutation in the form of deleterious mutations.
    Well you could get the same criticism for it is a quote from Wikipedia. (I forgot to tell you where it came from, sorry about that.)
    Do you understand Haldane's theory and can you adjust it for the implied errors? If you can do that you might be closer to the truth.
    Try it and come and explain it to me please.
    I don't know what it all means at the moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Well you could get the same criticism for it is a quote from Wikipedia. (I forgot to tell you where it came from, sorry about that.)Do you understand Haldane's theory and can you adjust it for the implied errors? If you can do that you might be closer to the truth. Try it and come and explain it to me please.
    I don't know what it all means at the moment.


    Look most the evolutionist (so called authorities one a PHD on the chimp genome project) that I have talked to didn’t really know their own science. Funny because I quoted the wiki and was doing pretty well until that person actually changed the wiki under my nose.


    Listen my friend, I am not a scientist. I do have a background in mathematics (not strong in statistics) and programming. I know just enough to get me in trouble. I do read the articles, some all the way thru some I skim read. I do spend the time to understand what I am posting (too much time).


    My only real claim is that I love the truth and science and from your posts I see the same passion (stay with it).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    ....
    My only real claim is that I love the truth and science and from your posts I see the same passion (stay with it).
    I am sure you can understand and accept evolution and still believe in God, don't let that worry you. The evidence is like astronomical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    I am sure you can understand and accept evolution and still believe in God, don't let that worry you. The evidence is like astronomical.



    You asked so I will try and answer….


    I will be completely honest with you (no holes bared). I was a evolutionist when I accepted Christ. Since then I have discovered it is harder to believe in evolution than Genesis. I have made it a point to examine all the evidence against de novo creation by God and de novo creation by abject materialism.


    It sounds like a reasonable proposition that common descent (basic evolution) is the rule but when the proposition is scrutinized by scientific means you only find nonsense.


    There is no scientific reason why you should not accept a de novo creation by a all powerful God.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    I am sure you can understand and accept evolution and still believe in God, don't let that worry you. The evidence is like astronomical.

    You asked so I will try and answer….
    I will be completely honest with you (no holes bared). I was a evolutionist when I accepted Christ. Since then I have discovered it is harder to believe in evolution than Genesis. I have made it a point to examine all the evidence against de novo creation by God and de novo creation by abject materialism.
    It sounds like a reasonable proposition that common descent (basic evolution) is the rule but when the proposition is scrutinized by scientific means you only find nonsense.
    There is no scientific reason why you should not accept a de novo creation by a all powerful God.
    If you went and studied old Christian literature you might even find references to ideas that suggest things like genetic engineering. That is what I see any way. To me Genesis speaks of evolution.
    OK to explain the steps is not easy and this is the answer given by those who don't accept the idea yet.

    Have a look at the idea of endogenised retroviruses (ERV). There are plenty of situations where the same ERV is in the same location along a line of species connected in the tree of life. That speaks of evolution from one species to another. That was the one piece of evidence that has proven evolution to me beyond all other things.

    I can't recall the exact text but here is one example (not the one I wanted):
    http://gnosis.org/library/visionpaul.htm
    22. And I looked around upon that land and I saw a river flowing of milk and honey, and there were trees planted by the bank of that river, full of fruit: moreover each single tree bore twelve fruits in the year, having various and diverse fruits: and I saw the created things which are in that place and all the work of God, and I saw there palms of twenty cubits, but others of ten cubits: and that land was seven times brighter than silver. And there were trees full of fruits from the roots to the highest branches, of ten thousand fruits of palms upon ten thousand fruits. The grape-vines moreover had ten thousand plants.12 Moreover in the single vines there were ten thousand thousand bunches and in each of these a thousand single grapes:
    You would only get fruit trees like that with genetic engineering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    If you went and studied old Christian literature you might even find references to ideas that suggest things like genetic engineering. That is what I see any way. To me Genesis speaks of evolution.
    really ? isn't that the result of 20/20 hindsight ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    If you went and studied old Christian literature you might even find references to ideas that suggest things like genetic engineering. That is what I see any way. To me Genesis speaks of evolution.
    really ? isn't that the result of 20/20 hindsight ?
    We all seem to have 20/20 hindsight. I don't know but I was just trying to show that the ideas of variation have been around for a long time (but I could NOT find the reference I wanted).
    Genetic engineering hasn't quite done these things either yet, so it is still rather futuristic.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; September 19th, 2014 at 04:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    This was the verses I was thinking of, I see it referred to but I haven't located the actual source as yet sorry, but there are clues, they say it was Papias.
    https://www.christianhistoryinstitut...millennialism/
    THE DAYS WILL COME in which vines shall grow,” imagined Papias of Hierapolis, “each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give two hundred gallons of wine. And when any of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, 'I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.'” Papias (c.60-120)
    I would hate to calculate how much wine the whole vine would produce if the whole crop was sent to the winery! 10^4 * 10^4 *10^4 * 10^4 * 200 * 4.25 liters of wine
    It definitely seems like an exaggeration, for that is vast amount of water for the roots to absorb!
    It was originally from Fragments of Papias http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm
    Last edited by Robittybob1; September 19th, 2014 at 04:46 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    I can see one animal having DNA mutated but two at the exact same time is rather unusual to me.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I can see one animal having DNA mutated but two at the exact same time is rather unusual to me.
    Every human is born with more than 100 new mutations.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    really ? isn't that the result of 20/20 hindsight ?
    A more prudent question is how and why he's turned this discussion into one to discuss intelligent design as a scientific theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    There is no scientific reason why you should not accept a de novo creation by a all powerful God.
    Except that creation myth fails every possible scientific examination which, by default, requires we reject it for more plausible theories.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I can see one animal having DNA mutated but two at the exact same time is rather unusual to me.
    That is right. No two in the same place unless by chance itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    There is no scientific reason why you should not accept a de novo creation by a all powerful God.
    Except that creation myth fails every possible scientific examination which, by default, requires we reject it for more plausible theories.
    It is more than that, there is evidence for evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    really ? isn't that the result of 20/20 hindsight ?
    A more prudent question is how and why he's turned this discussion into one to discuss intelligent design as a scientific theory.
    Who are you referring too?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Have a look at the idea of endogenised retroviruses (ERV). There are plenty of situations where the same ERV is in the same location along a line of species connected in the tree of life.



    “Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are sequences in the genome thought to be derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome.
    WIKI…”


    Sounds interesting doesn’t it…


    “This method is more precise in estimating HERV ages and can be used for any HERV insertions. Cross-sectional dating has been used to suggest that two members of HERV-K(HML2), HERV-K106 and HERV-K116, were active in the last 800,000 years and that HERV-K106 may have infected modern humans 150,000 years ago.”

    There are 4 families of HERV-k virus sequenced here. Last infection is 150k years ago. This gives the time span from first infection of HERV-K from 800K years ago to 150K years ago or 650K years time span.

    Did you know that retroviruses have a mutation rate that range well into 1 million times that of humans because of the way they reproduce. So you make a ancient human to a modern human in about 800 thousand years. So why can you recognize HERV-K after 650 thousand years between infection times? Why did this retrovirus not change into another type of virus? Is it in stasis?

    In definite terms:

    650K x 1 million = 650 billion equivalent evolution years.

    So a retrovirus can not speciate in 650 billion years… a hominid changed in 6 million years to a human.

    There is claims that it has been around for 30 million years… What is up with that?

    There is no evidence that HERV-K is still around as a “free” variance today. So it just went extinct in last 150K years, it has supposedly been around 30 million years.

    I do not believe the paradigm because it is affront to common sense.

    If this paradigm is true then it surly proves evolution did not occur in HERVs, at least in this case and several others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    I do not believe the paradigm because it is affront to common sense.
    Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Have a look at the idea of endogenised retroviruses (ERV). There are plenty of situations where the same ERV is in the same location along a line of species connected in the tree of life.



    “Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are sequences in the genome thought to be derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome.
    WIKI…”


    Sounds interesting doesn’t it…


    “This method is more precise in estimating HERV ages and can be used for any HERV insertions. Cross-sectional dating has been used to suggest that two members of HERV-K(HML2), HERV-K106 and HERV-K116, were active in the last 800,000 years and that HERV-K106 may have infected modern humans 150,000 years ago.”

    There are 4 families of HERV-k virus sequenced here. Last infection is 150k years ago. This gives the time span from first infection of HERV-K from 800K years ago to 150K years ago or 650K years time span.

    Did you know that retroviruses have a mutation rate that range well into 1 million times that of humans because of the way they reproduce. So you make a ancient human to a modern human in about 800 thousand years. So why can you recognize HERV-K after 650 thousand years between infection times? Why did this retrovirus not change into another type of virus? Is it in stasis?

    In definite terms:

    650K x 1 million = 650 billion equivalent evolution years.

    So a retrovirus can not speciate in 650 billion years… a hominid changed in 6 million years to a human.

    There is claims that it has been around for 30 million years… What is up with that?

    There is no evidence that HERV-K is still around as a “free” variance today. So it just went extinct in last 150K years, it has supposedly been around 30 million years.

    I do not believe the paradigm because it is affront to common sense.

    If this paradigm is true then it surely proves evolution did not occur in HERVs, at least in this case and several others.
    OK that is your first little attempt at understanding just one of the ERV. Your calculations don't seem to make a lot of sense to me, so I suggest you stick with a bit more study on the ERV.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Is that in each line of breeding individuals there is one beneficial mutation for every 300 generations, so if you had a breeding population of 3,000 you have 10 beneficial mutations in the population per generation. Is that how you see it?



    In a real evolution model there are mutations and mutation cost. Haldane (a evolution authority to this day) developed a statistic that represents the fixing of mutations in a population. This fixing of a trait is essential to setting evolution change to that population.


    If you say that a generation is 20 years, it would take 300 generations x 20 years or 6000 years to fix one beneficial mutation.


    By the way Haldane is not a creationist….

    That's absurd. There is no "requirement" for a mutation to be stable before it can be used. Instability is a liability, yes, but if the mutation is beneficial enough, then the liability is worth the cost.

    It's like the march of technology. If you invent a better mousetrap, the government gives you a patent. Nature doesn't give you exactly a "patent" per se, but there is no way for anyone to "copy" your new mutation. So if you invent it first, it will be a while before anyone else gets what you have. (Which is just about as good as having a patent.)

    If a fish manages to "invent" a way to get to an abundant foodsource nobody else has access to, that fish will get fat, mate with lots of other fish, and have gadzooks of offspring. Please try and explain to me how that would not happen????

    Just as how the Ford Model T would be seen as a very pathetic automobile by modern standards, the first "leg" might have been pretty basic also. However Ford sold quite a lot of Model T's. How is it possible that Ford could sell so many copies of an automobile design that we consider to be very poor today? ??? Clearly the reason is because he didn't have to compete against the automobiles of today.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    I do not believe the paradigm because it is affront to common sense.
    Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    1. "I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true."

    This appears to be your argument for evolution... also the fallacy...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    I do not believe the paradigm because it is affront to common sense.
    Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    1. "I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true."

    This appears to be your argument for evolution... also the fallacy...
    Well, at least that confirms that all you have to support your ludicrous quasi-religious bullshit are the lies you make up.
    I guess you will always be a delusional and dishonest forum troll, as that is all you are capable of.
    Good luck with that*.

    * Not really.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution?

    This article introduces the arguments from both sides so it gives you some clues as to what to look up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution?


    This article introduces the arguments from both sides so it gives you some clues as to what to look up.
    Read your citation… This is very pro creation (see the conclusion of the article). The article is going into my bookmark. Thanks
    These arguments only reinforce my speculations.


    OK… drop everything I said and just say they are what evolutionists claim they are.

    Did HERV-k remain in stasis?

    If it was a stable retrovirus why did it disappear 150K years ago when human population was growing. What changed in the viruses environment to cause it to go extinct?

    In any organism on the planet wouldn’t you expect to see evolution in a retrovirus?

    I did find the following in your citation:

    It is interesting to note that ERVs are different than the retroviral genomes from which they are supposed to have originated. Evolutionists usually explain this away by claiming that the ERV sequences have evolved to the point where they are quite different from their ancestral genomes. Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com

    Question is again how are they stable over 30 million years if they are evolving at all?


    In my opinion: No conclusive evidence has ever been produced that retroviruses or Whales have ever evolved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post

    Read your citation… This is very pro creation (see the conclusion of the article). The article is going into my bookmark. Thanks
    These arguments only reinforce my speculations.
    I knew you'd get excited about that article but you have to look at more and really balance up both views. These ERVs do evolve. They duplicate and change at the same time. Really look at how it works. Don't think that from that one article arguing a certain view it gives you the whole answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Well, at least that confirms that all you have to support your ludicrous quasi-religious bullshit are the lies you make up.
    I guess you will always be a delusional and dishonest forum troll, as that is all you are capable of.
    Good luck with that



    Your blocking Panda… Just tell me what you really think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution?


    This article introduces the arguments from both sides so it gives you some clues as to what to look up.
    It is not an article, it is a pseudoscience site. It does not present two sides, it only presents lies and strawmen. It is not just crap, it is &#$%! crap.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution?


    This article introduces the arguments from both sides so it gives you some clues as to what to look up.
    It is not an article, it is a pseudoscience site. It does not present two sides, it only presents lies and strawmen. It is not just crap, it is &#$%! crap.
    Does a study of ERVs prove evolution? What do you think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution?


    This article introduces the arguments from both sides so it gives you some clues as to what to look up.
    It is not an article, it is a pseudoscience site. It does not present two sides, it only presents lies and strawmen. It is not just crap, it is &#$%! crap.
    Does a study of ERVs prove evolution? What do you think.
    Remember a theory can only be disproved and not by definition proven.

    Don't you get the feeling GiantEvil is stalking your posts? just creepy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    ...

    Remember a theory can only be disproved and not by definition proven.

    Don't you get the feeling GiantEvil is stalking your posts? just creepy.
    No I appreciate GE for at least he reads my posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Well, at least that confirms that all you have to support your ludicrous quasi-religious bullshit are the lies you make up.
    I guess you will always be a delusional and dishonest forum troll, as that is all you are capable of.
    Good luck with that
    Your blocking Panda… Just tell me what you really think.
    I could do that, but the level of English comprehension required to fully appreciate my sentiments is beyond your limited ability.

    But don't let my reticence put you off posting your lies.
    Your mother would be proud of you.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I can see one animal having DNA mutated but two at the exact same time is rather unusual to me.
    Every human is born with more than 100 new mutations.
    But the animals that evolved had to have had the exact DNA mutations happen at the same time so that they could mate and have offspring to further along their new species. This mutation also happened to two animals, at least, in close proximity to each other to they could mate but how could they find each other it they were a totally new species? It seems to me a very hard thing to have done when all this evolving was going on.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    really ? isn't that the result of 20/20 hindsight ?
    A more prudent question is how and why he's turned this discussion into one to discuss intelligent design as a scientific theory.
    I don't know if you are addressing me but if so I am not trying to do that but am only asking poignant questions that , to me, I can't seem to figure out about evolution.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I can see one animal having DNA mutated but two at the exact same time is rather unusual to me.
    That is right. No two in the same place unless by chance itself.
    So then how did the new species have offspring to further themselves? I do not understand that each step of evolution could have had the exact same mutated DNA in the same animal at the same place and time with two or more animals. Then they had to find each other to mate and that would be difficult as well.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Moderator Warning: GTCethos, this is a science forum. We discuss mainstream science. You may discuss, subject to forum rules and moderator discretion, intelligent design and creationism in threads specifically devoted to those topics. You will not derail threads within the main forum with your delusions. I call them delusions, since evolution is a proven concept, and the theory that explains it is one of the best validated scientific theories in existence. Do not respond this warning in this thread. If you have a problem with it then use the report button, or pm another member of staff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I can see one animal having DNA mutated but two at the exact same time is rather unusual to me.
    That is right. No two in the same place unless by chance itself.
    So then how did the new species have offspring to further themselves? I do not understand that each step of evolution could have had the exact same mutated DNA in the same animal at the same place and time with two or more animals. Then they had to find each other to mate and that would be difficult as well.
    No two individuals have exactly the same DNA but we are still able to mate and have offspring. I'd imagine there is a limit to how different the DNA can be, for example if the mutation split the chromosome maybe the mating could not happen. I'm not strong on first hand knowledge of this for it is well established how it all works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I can see one animal having DNA mutated but two at the exact same time is rather unusual to me.
    That is right. No two in the same place unless by chance itself.
    So then how did the new species have offspring to further themselves? I do not understand that each step of evolution could have had the exact same mutated DNA in the same animal at the same place and time with two or more animals. Then they had to find each other to mate and that would be difficult as well.
    The concept of species is an artificial one, arising out of the human propensity for classifying. There is a gradual progression from what we might call species A to species B. This is achieved through many individual mutations. None of these mutations renders the beneficiary unable to mate with those who have not had the mutation. (If it did, that would be the end of that mutation.) If it is a beneficial mutation then it may spread through the population over time. Is this clear to you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    No two individuals have exactly the same DNA but we are still able to mate and have offspring. I'd imagine there is a limit to how different the DNA can be, for example if the mutation split the chromosome maybe the mating could not happen. I'm not strong on first hand knowledge of this for it is well established how it all works.



    You are 100% correct. There is a limit to the variance allowed in the DNA between mating organisms. The fusion of chromosome #2 in humans is a perfect example. The individual experiencing such a mutton would immediately be unable to breed in that population. There would have to be an identical mutation in a male and female at the same loci at the same time in order to produce a offspring.


    That type of mutation has never been observed in any primate since primates have been in captivity.


    Since the Hox-d gene on chromosome #2 is highly conserved and is critical to limb placement it is unlikely that probability of the mutation falls below Borel’s cosmic limit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    By the way a mutation such as the one mentioned has to be “fixed” in that population. It has been shown that “Classic sweeps in evolution” are not the mechanism for human change. This would be a bottleneck not a sweep in a population.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com
    Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution?


    This article introduces the arguments from both sides so it gives you some clues as to what to look up.
    It is not an article, it is a pseudoscience site. It does not present two sides, it only presents lies and strawmen. It is not just crap, it is &#$%! crap.
    Does a study of ERVs prove evolution? What do you think.
    Without malice let me state that I can't be arsed to do the reading and research to obtain the knowledge base whereby I feel confident to hold an opinion in the matter.
    As far as evolution goes, it is the least doubtable theory as expounded by a plethora of sources disciplined to the scientific method.

    ^#85="LIKE"
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    My calculation of the unlikely fusion of chromosome #2 is as follows:

    There are about 870 genes on each human chromosome (the ones we care about). So the order of genes on one chromosome would be 870 factorial.


    870! = 2.6 x 10^2181… so 1 in 10^2181 random probability.


    This is far below Borel and Dembski’s bound. It seems impossible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I can see one animal having DNA mutated but two at the exact same time is rather unusual to me.
    Every human is born with more than 100 new mutations.
    But the animals that evolved had to have had the exact DNA mutations happen at the same time so that they could mate and have offspring to further along their new species.
    Every human is born with more than 100 new mutations.

    Do you think that humans from different generations are unable to have offspring?
    I doubt that you do.

    So, why do you think that animals need to have identical mutations to be able to reproduce?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I can see one animal having DNA mutated but two at the exact same time is rather unusual to me.
    Every human is born with more than 100 new mutations.
    But the animals that evolved had to have had the exact DNA mutations happen at the same time so that they could mate and have offspring to further along their new species.
    Every human is born with more than 100 new mutations.

    Do you think that humans from different generations are unable to have offspring?
    I doubt that you do.

    So, why do you think that animals need to have identical mutations to be able to reproduce?
    Is he confusing mutations with chromosomes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Is he confusing mutations with chromosomes?
    Hmmm....maybe.
    That would make more sense.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I can see one animal having DNA mutated but two at the exact same time is rather unusual to me.
    Every human is born with more than 100 new mutations.
    But the animals that evolved had to have had the exact DNA mutations happen at the same time so that they could mate and have offspring to further along their new species.
    Every human is born with more than 100 new mutations.

    Do you think that humans from different generations are unable to have offspring?
    I doubt that you do.

    So, why do you think that animals need to have identical mutations to be able to reproduce?
    Ok, so if a fishs DNA mutates into an amphibian then how does a fish reproduce with that amphibian for there's only fish and that one amphibian around not hundreds of them waiting to reproduce. I just cannot wrap my head around when a mutation happens and a new species is evolved just how can that happen when all there were was fish and the one amphibian.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Thinking about the type of mutation that would occur (a telomere fusion) I will revise the estimate: It would be two mutations (fusions) in the germ line, one for the male one for the female…


    The first distribution is one chromosome fused to one out of 23 possibilities. Order does not matter… And this twice for two germ lines…




    23^23 X 23^23 or 529^46 = 1.9 x 10^125


    Above Borel and below Dembski….
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Ok, so if a fishs DNA mutates into an amphibian then how does a fish reproduce with that amphibian for there's only fish and that one amphibian around not hundreds of them waiting to reproduce. I just cannot wrap my head around when a mutation happens and a new species is evolved just how can that happen when all there were was fish and the one amphibian.



    Welcome to the fantasy land of evolution…

    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Evolution is not a fantasy to me. Just because I don't understand something doesn't mean that it is wrong.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    "Every human is born with more than 100 new mutations."


    Your number is wrong… stop posting via ignorance.


    Let me help you with current estimations…


    “Here we show that in our samples, with an average father’s age of 29.7, the average de novo mutation rate is 1.20×10−8 per nucleotide per generation. Rate of de novo mutations, father


    That is about 70 new mutations per generation.
    diploid number of genes involved is 5.8333x10^9


    5.8333x10^9 x 1.2x10^-8 =70 mutations per generation….
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Evolution is not a fantasy to me. Just because I don't understand something doesn't mean that it is wrong.
    One must always have some facts behind one’s belief or you are only visiting superstition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 11th, 2014, 03:15 AM
  2. Change the announcers every New Years instead of always the same one
    By cosmictraveler in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2013, 02:30 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 12th, 2012, 09:20 PM
  4. Dna polimerase types of DNA replication
    By SkyDreamer in forum Biology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2008, 11:59 AM
  5. Climate change - we've got 10 years
    By BSG CORP in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: February 26th, 2008, 03:39 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •