If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

[spuriousmonkey]

You gotta love this out of context crap. Your out of context phrase didn't even mention mutation....only duplication????Where is the example that gene mutation is beneficial?? Give me one freakin example that a mutated gene can make us better?
.

you fail to see the concept that a population is not a homogenous mass of genes. They all have mutations in their genes that make them different versions of the same gene. Most mutations are neutral, some are detrimental to the fitness. Some are good.

You want examples?

Search the literature.

The standard textbook answer would be resitance against antibiotics in bacteria.

Often mutations seem neutral, but suddenly are beneficial under certain circumstances. A classic example is your immunesystem. If everybody was genetically the same we would have been wiped out a long time ago by a killer virus (despite the fact that the immunesystem can create new information on the individual level).

Sickle cell anemia is a bad mutation if you live in europe. Not so in malaria infested regions.

Life is not black and white.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

spuriousmonkey.........Well, all right. Excuse me! How about scientist, just a short time ago, etc. Is that better.

Did you see those two elephants that were reunited after 25 years. Gosh, they bent iron bars that separated them, then the next day they were out in the field wrapping there trunks around each other. So touching.

Thank you for straightening me out. PMT

 

[mountainhare]

Where is the example that gene mutation is beneficial?? Give me one freakin example that a mutated gene can make us better?

Increases (and decreases) in genetic information have been observed. Most are detrimental or neutral, however, a small % ARE benefical.

The web page (www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm)
about talks about the nylon bug... Hope you find it interesting.

Also, a snippet of info which also will have you thinking... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests [e.g. Newcomb et al. 1997]. (No, these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations [Wichman et al. 1999]. Other examples include:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon [Prijambada et al. 1995].
Plant breeders use mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones [FAO/IAEA 1977].
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS [Dean et al. 1996]
. . . or to heart disease [Weisgraber et al. 1983; Long 1994; Rayl 2000].
A mutation in humans makes bones strong [Boyden et al. 2002].
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity [Moffat 2000].
Mutation and selection in vitro can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules such as a ribozyme [Wright and Joyce 1997].

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation which helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations which once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations don't do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly [Elena et al. 1996].

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability [Oliver et al. 2000].

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the Young Earth Creationism model [Morris 1974, 13].

So Flores, you have an answer to your question...

Give me one freakin example that a mutated gene can make us better?

Tell me, who told you the nonsense statement 'benefical mutations do not exist'? I think that they have some explaining to do. Either they are ignorant, or willingly deceptive.

 

[James R]

Several people have now mentioned a "missing link" between ape ancestor species and present-day human beings. The claim is that unless we can find the "missing link", the evolution of modern humans and apes from a common ancestor will not be proved.

This is the wrong way of looking at evolution. So-called "intermediate" fossils have already been mentioned in this thread. The fact is, when you look at fossils it is impossible to say that any particular fossil is the direct ancestor of a particular modern-day organism. Fossils are snapshots in time. They freeze particular individual organisms, whose features we can then compare with other known organisms. Fossils which share many features in common with one or more modern species are strong evidence of common descent of the modern species.

There was a link posted above showing a chart of the known hominid fossils ordered by date. By looking at the features of each fossil, we can easily see that some are more alike than others. After careful analysis, we conclude that species which are more alike are probably more closely related to one another. In this way, we make deductions about descent from common ancestors.

For example, suppose that, knowing almost nothing, you are presented with three fossils, which happen to be of a cat, an ape and a human being. All are of similar age. What can we conclude about common descent? Well, first we list all the features of the fossils, such as how the limbs are arranged, how big particular parts of the body are in relation to one another, how various bones and bodily structures are shaped and how they fit together etc. Then, we look for commonalities between the 3 fossils, and (surprise!) we find that the ape fossil has more features in common with the human than with the cat. We therefore conclude that the human is more closely related to the ape than to the cat. In other words, the human and the ape shared a common ancestor more recently than the human and the cat shared a common ancestor. Remember, one of the key premises of the theory of evolution is that <b>all</b> life derived from a single common ancestor species, so it is not a viable conclusion in the evolutionary system to say that the human and the ape are totally unrelated, or that the cat and the human are unrelated.

Are there "missing links" in this picture? Not really. It is unlikely that we will ever find a fossil which has features half way between cat and ape. There is no need for a "missing link" between the ape and the cat. However, we <b>might</b>, at some stage, find a fossil which has featuers common to both cats and apes, but lacks features specific to either. Such a fossil might be a common ancestor (it depends on the dating, among other things), or it might be something on another, close, branch of the evolutionary tree (e.g. a dog).

Talking of "missing links" takes an unhelpful, linear view of evolution. It views evolution as a progression from one form of animal to the next, like a ladder with bacteria at the bottom, apes further up and humans at the top. But life is not like a ladder - it is like a tree with many branches but one common root. Modern apes and humans sit at the ends of different branches of the tree, but when you trace those branches back towards the trunk of the tree, at some point you will find that they join together.

 

[James R]

PMT,

Is it not true also that our dna is similar to that of a banana? This is a real question; I am not trying to be smart, okay?

Yes. At a rough guess, I'd say we probably share about 1/3 of our genes with bananas.

Here is something I think about: Science just a short time ago declared that they have now proven that animals have feelings.
I could have told them this when I was five years old. When this ape-thing started, scientist were not saying much about other species being intelligent. While realizing that one can read anything, and none may be true, I have read that cats have a very large vocabulary, that birds are far more intelligen that one ever thought; and of course all the hoop tee do about dolphins and whales most specifically being able to communicate with man.

I don't see the relevance of all this.

Is it not just possible that this ape to man thing is more supposition than fact. It is called Darwin's theory, but related as a fact proven by science. Not that it matters to me how this body evolved; this slipery subject has affected by faith none, and I wonder why folks get so excited about it. Believing or not believing it will not change the truth. Yet, it does disturb me a bit that this theory is held in such high regard with this missing link still missing.

I hope my previous post explained why a "missing link" is unnecessary.

 

[Flores]

Often mutations seem neutral, but suddenly are beneficial under certain circumstances. A classic example is your immunesystem. If everybody was genetically the same we would have been wiped out a long time ago by a killer virus (despite the fact that the immunesystem can create new information on the individual level).

This is not a good example.

Sickle cell anemia is a bad mutation if you live in europe. Not so in malaria infested regions.

Life is not black and white.

I disagree, sickle cell anemia is bad wherever you live...I'd rather fight malaria and take my chances as a healthy person than have sickle cell anemia.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

It must be difficult to swollow for some, but watches hatch from eggs...


the universe has gone totally haywire


laws of physics are confused

 

[Flores]

But we're not 'created' from a sperm and an ova, sperm and ova are produced by the parents, they combine to form a zygote, and this zygote evolves into a human. There are no gaps where an act of 'creation' must occur to get from one point to the next; it's a continuous bio-chemical process that operates within purely natural means.

Let's look at a simpler problem. Let's discuss how plants may have evolved?. I think we can agree that seeds are produced from trees, yet it's also true that out of a single seed, we can grow a tree. So which one came first, the egg or the chicken? The seed or the tree? The sperm/ova or the human?

Because this answer leaves too many facts unexplained.

What facts are these that may not be explained? And are you suggesting that the evolution theory have all the answers?

 

[Flores]

you fail to see the concept that a population is not a homogenous mass of genes. They all have mutations in their genes that make them different versions of the same gene. Most mutations are neutral, some are detrimental to the fitness. Some are good.

Thank you very much for answering all my questions. I encourage you to read your words above again and describe to me this SAME gene that you describe? You see, I also believe that we are all variation of the same gene...I call it the pre-designed perfect human gene....And does this SAME gene apply to turtles and wild flowers?

 

[davewhite04]

Hiya Raithere,

It depends upon how you interpret certain portions of the Bible literally or figuratively.

This is true. I interpret the Bible literally based on the context of the verse I’m reading. When God Said “Let there be Light” this could be what we now theorise as the Big Bang. As I see it Science actually helps my understanding of the Bible. But if someone said in the Bible “You swine” to someone else, then I know the other person isn’t a pig, it’s just a figure of speech we humans use. The Christian God is not a God of confusion.

It's hard to say. This also brings us back to which discoveries we consider human and which are apes. Australopithecus was capable of making stone knives and axes which demonstrates a capacity for imagination but it is unlikely that they could speak as their physiology was ape-like and they probably did not have the ability to produce more than hoots and grunts.

Yes. I call it the key because I value communication as a valuable asset we humans have got, verbal, sign, written; this makes us vastly different to animal’s imo. Because we don’t talk verbally for a while after birth I do wonder if we did in fact communicate to each other in a different way, but this is all hypothetical and I feel may never be proven.

Only one needs to be found, an individual does not exist alone. Classification of species is dependent upon the differences between one form and another. The classification of 'Kind' is meaningless.

I can’t quite understand what you’re saying here. I think you are saying that if one “different” fossil is found then it is classified as a new species.

When we look at the changes over time we can see that the development was from the land to the sea. We can be pretty confident of this.

This does sound interesting, and it actually makes me think about the great flood.

Think of a set of pictures depicting your growth from an infant to an adult. If someone had no idea of the growth of a human and they were all mixed up they might think these were all different individuals or that humans went through some bizarre process of development. But if there were placed in order from oldest to most recent it would be pretty easy to gain a clear idea of your development.

Nice overview thanks. But really what we’re talking about is slightly more complex then what you’re explaining. Why did these animals make a conscience effort to become water based? How did they know there was food in the water?

Not really, for a couple of reasons. Massive mutations are very rare, the mutations aren't usually functional, and they don't typically survive past birth. A dog born with flippers and gills would drown on land even if they were functional. Successful mutations are small ones (webbed digits, a slightly flatter tail that pushes water more efficiently) that provide a small survival advantage.

Yes it does make sense that they will be small, learning to walk before you run springs to mind.

Beyond that you must consider that we're not talking about a single fossil but multiple ones indicating populations.

This does make sense.

Great! What about speciation? What about man?

Apologies for seemingly ignoring these questions, I simply didn’t mean to. Speciation must happen or else we wouldn’t have hardly any animals today. To me this means that earth is continually changing maybe for our amusement or seriously more likely because of the state of our environment which is due to man, I don’t know. Man has changed, look at a Chinaman compared to an Italian.

It would be fascinating but what about my question? How and where do you make the distinction between ape and human?

Civilization

If man did not evolve this way what are we seeing here?

Another species of Ape imo, an interesting Ape though.

We're not really. We've simply evolved intelligence a bit further in a particular direction than any other species but there's nothing particularly outstanding about us. Apes can be taught sign language and can communicate well with it. The famous Koko can 'speak' 2000 words, understands syntax and grammar about as well as a three-year-old human, and has an I.Q. between 70 and 95. Chimps use 'natural' tools (they can't really make them). Birds and Dolphins have advanced linguistic abilities.

I think we are at least a little bit more special then any other thing on earth. When I decide to switch on the News and see what some of us “Special” humans get up to I wonder, what planet are some people from? Behaviour based on Religion and Moral Codes and basically outright Power Madness. Does the behaviour of people surprise you?

No, we've just evolved a couple of very interesting and important abilities; the ability to plan ahead and the ability to change our environment.

Sounds familiar

Who says they did? Perhaps they evolved into us.

Perhaps, but we’re really guessing now.

Or perhaps our ancestors we're able to out compete them because our ancestors (their cousins) we're just a little bit smarter or stronger.

Is there any evidence that the majority of these Ape fossils received a fatal blow to the head? Or some other fatal wound? Or are you suggesting that the cousins knew they were running out of whatever they ate at the time and got outta dodge, while leaving their cousins behind, maybe because they didn’t like them or something?

The difference is not that we observe the Universe and find patterns there. All creatures do that. The difference is the level of our ability to think abstractly and plan ahead.

This is fascinating. You know if there is a God (which I strongly believe there is) then I believe he did, at least at some stage, communicate with every creature, perhaps he still does. A little tidbit I’ll throw into the pot is why do some (maybe all) wild animals freeze when a light is shone on them in the dark? Maybe there’s a scientific explanation, I haven’t looked into it. This is off topic slightly, but I just thought I’d throw it in. No need to answer.

People tend to believe what they're told no matter what the source... just look at advertising. It's important to be critical and examine the evidence, examine the arguments, think about alternative explanations. But why stop only with science?

I don’t stop at science, I question everything. Art, Literature, and Movies you name it, I’m naturally cynical, but I’m trying not to be. My Bible I believe is all true, this is (religious) faith and I’m not questioning it at the moment as I experience real results, benefits if you like. I’m only just beginning my walk with Christ and it’s marvellous.

Not directly, no.

Bingo, so where is the problem?

But there are some verses that must be interpreted figuratively rather than literally in order for the two to remain in agreement. At the time it was written, "The four corners of the Earth" was probably understood literally

We refer to the earth as having 4 corners now! North, South, West and East! The nations of the East, China, Russia versus the Nations of the West, USA, UK! Was the Bible ahead of it’s time? Or are we still old fashioned?

and Genesis clearly states that the Earth was created before the Sun. So which of the verses are literal and which are figurative?

Maybe the earth was created before everything else? Goes against Hawkins slightly, but God can do anything. Remember that when he said “Let there be Light” There was no time, no boundaries in other words. I’m just throwing ideas around here like.

If historically Biblical literalism has given way to figurative interpretation in order to accommodate the findings of scientific discovery why is this topic any different?

As I’ve already said, my Bible I take literally and couldn’t care less about what the current religious doctrine is. I take Science literal too.

Why are we born as infants from our mother's womb, why aren't we born fully grown from dust?

Why do the rivers flow to the Sea?

Why did he wait for several billion years from the Big Bang before creating the Earth and then man?

Well this billion year issue might have something to do with the earth being outside of time at one stage.

Why did he wait for eternity before creating anything; what was he doing since forever?

Who knows what he’s been up to

I can't answer the questions about God... most of it makes no sense at all to me... More than that and we'll have to take it up in another thread.

Yeah, hopefully some decent threads will come about at some stage.

Dave

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Let's look at a simpler problem. Let's discuss how plants may have evolved?. I think we can agree that seeds are produced from trees, yet it's also true that out of a single seed, we can grow a tree. So which one came first, the egg or the chicken? The seed or the tree? The sperm/ova or the human?

you are probably joking here, but if not:


a scenario.

First there was the unicellular organism. No egg, no sperm, no seed, just division.

Then unicellular organisms evolved that produced by sex.

Unicellular organims began to live in colonies. However in the beginning all cells were capable of producing new offspring.

A step later we see a division of tasks appear within these colonies. Only a few of the cells will produce gametes that.

A next step involved a colony with gametes of 2 different sizes. A small male and larger female gamete.

Colonies of daughter cells become more and more complex and the specialization of germ cells (reproductive cells) becomes final.

 

[Flores]

you are probably joking here, but if not:


a scenario.

First there was the unicellular organism. No egg, no sperm, no seed, just division.

Then unicellular organisms evolved that produced by sex.

Unicellular organims began to live in colonies. However in the beginning all cells were capable of producing new offspring.

A step later we see a division of tasks appear within these colonies. Only a few of the cells will produce gametes that.

A next step involved a colony with gametes of 2 different sizes. A small male and larger female gamete.

Colonies of daughter cells become more and more complex and the specialization of germ cells (reproductive cells) becomes final.

Nice highschool biology infor, but to repeat my question, which one came first the seed or the tree?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Thank you very much for answering all my questions. I encourage you to read your words above again and describe to me this SAME gene that you describe? You see, I also believe that we are all variation of the same gene...I call it the pre-designed perfect human gene....And does this SAME gene apply to turtles and wild flowers?

There is no perfect gene probably.

You have to keep in mind that you can knock out a specific gene in the fruitfly. Let us say it is the gene 'engrailed'. The fruitfly malforms and dies.

You then put in the mouse version of the gene in the fruitlfy. The fruitlfy doesn't become a mouse. It becomes a perfectly good fruitfly, although there are quite a lot of mutations that separate the genes of both species.

This doesn't work for all genes though.

A gene encodes a protein (usually) and some regions of these proteins are more important than others. Some parts of the proteins are therefore very conserved. The corresponding parts on the gene are also conserved. But a gene might have aqcuired a different function in different species. Or the functional domains might have changed so much that they cannot work anymore in other species. They still work in the species of origin because the structures, proteins, genes it interacts with have changed with it.

Gene duplications also don't really suggest that there is something as a perfect gene. It is duplicated and then at least one of them can acquire a new function. Why would it need to acquire a new function if it is perfect?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Nice highschool biology infor, but to repeat my question, which one came first the seed or the tree?

The seed is the tree

 

[Flores]

The seed is the tree

Come on monkey? Then do explain please with your superior biology how the seed or the tree have developed? I would believe that a tremendous amount of plant life existed prior to the existance of any animal life, afterall, animal life is supported by plant life, so please explain how plants were developed from the unicellular organism, how they spread so much, and then what made the unicellular that has been becoming a plant for a long time decide to change it's mind and become an animal.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Come on monkey? Then do explain please with your superior biology how the seed or the tree have developed? I would believe that a tremendous amount of plant life existed prior to the existance of any animal life, afterall, animal life is supported by plant life, so please explain how plants were developed from the unicellular organism, how they spread so much, and then what made the unicellular that has been becoming a plant for a long time decide to change it's mind and become an animal.

Plant life didn't start with trees. Trees are quite old evolutionary inventions.

what makes you think that life started with plants?

 

[Flores]

Gene duplications also don't really suggest that there is something as a perfect gene. It is duplicated and then at least one of them can acquire a new function. Why would it need to acquire a new function if it is perfect?

And who said that the gene now a days is perfect? Now a days, we are dealing with highly variable unstable gene that is prone to mutation/duplication, ect...

 

[spuriousmonkey]

And who said that the gene now a days is perfect? Now a days, we are dealing with highly variable unstable gene that is prone to mutation/duplication, ect...

Scientific data seems to suggest that genes have always mutated and not so much just nowadays.

 

[Flores]

Plant life didn't start with trees. Trees are quite old evolutionary inventions.
what makes you think that life started with plants?

You are answering my questions with more questions, you are supposed to be the expert here. I have listed my question, and I don't want to be decoyed.

 

[Flores]

Scientific data seems to suggest that genes have always mutated and not so much just nowadays.

Then how come we started with a very small population and ended up growing againest the odds that you have just stated that most mutations are neutral or negative....very rarely are they beneficial, and I'm sure such rare occasion will not outweight the negative impacts of mutations. Againest such odds, one would expect humanity to perish quickly if the gene was always mutated and not perfect... There was simply not enough people around to dilute the problem like we see now a day. It's also a fact that relatives marriage increases your risk of problems? How come it doesn't improve our gene now a day to marry our sisters and brothers....When is it safe to procreate with your sister and for your kids to procreate with you and their siblings?