Chromosome challenge

[aceofspades230]

I'll see if I can find a cite of information on the "junk DNA" for you. I wish I had a membership to a journal like nature, It would definately be found somewhere in their database.


Natural selection is random if you think about it. The mechanism itself isn't, but in order for natural selection to work you can't have identical clones of a species. A natural variation of genes is required. Having a species of varying genes is what starts the selection automatically. I think that we were both thinking this but did not clarify ourselves. (sorry) The chromosonal mutation is random, and it would be possible to not have a result that created the human race. (how possible, I have no idea)

 

[aceofspades230]

here we go article its a little technical and i haven't had time to investigate his citations. This is about DNA that contains no code, but supports other functions required for life.

 

[Gibsons]

umn, okay but I don't think the article supports the statement: "Apparently the information density required to create all the proteins neccessary is larger than the amount contained in so called "non junk" DNA." And we're waaaaay off the original topic now...

Regarding the "information density," the human genome is about 3x10^9 bp, number of genes is estimated at 20-100k, so take 50k as an estimate - that leaves about 60k bp per gene... the average gene is (guesstimate) 2kb or so of coding sequences. Which is about in line with estimates of 3% of the genome being coding sequences. There's no shortage of room for coding sequences.

That article is mostly talking about regulatory non-coding regions, which has been a known phenomenon for decades... from the look of it, most of that article was written around '96 or so (that's where most of the references are from), and enhancers were nothing new at that time.

I think a lot confusion comes out of the word "junk DNA." It's a term rarely used in molecular biology - I just looked at four different molecular biology textbooks on my shelf and not one has "junk" in the index. In popular articles, I think they might be calling any non-coding DNA "junk," which is misleading or just wrong. In any technical discussion, one will probably be asked to be more specific - non-coding DNA, LINE-1 or Alu repeats, etc.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: aceofspades230
I'll see if I can find a cite of information on the "junk DNA" for you. I wish I had a membership to a journal like nature, It would definately be found somewhere in their database.


Natural selection is random if you think about it. The mechanism itself isn't, but in order for natural selection to work you can't have identical clones of a species. A natural variation of genes is required. Having a species of varying genes is what starts the selection automatically. I think that we were both thinking this but did not clarify ourselves. (sorry) The chromosonal mutation is random, and it would be possible to not have a result that created the human race. (how possible, I have no idea)

Natural selection is by definition the very opposite of random.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dgevert
Natural selection is by definition the very opposite of random.

But a random mutation is the instigator for natural selection, so there is some randomness built into the process. If a species initially has gene A which mutates into gene B in some fraction of the population and B flourishes while A dies out, the natural selection occurs after the random occurrence.

 

[Gilby]

But a random mutation is the instigator for natural selection,

Nope.

Natural Selection is not random. Get rid of any and all mutations, starting right now, and Natural Selection would continue to work.

 

[JAGedlion]

Why do you say natural selection isn't random? Every step in the chain of events that promotes natural selection is random. Mutations are random, yes, but even if an extremely advantageouse mutation occurs, you still need the new individual to seperate from its original population to promote speciation. Let alone the fact that just cause its advantageouse to survival doesn't mean it'll promote your reproduction, and as soon as this member is lost, the mutation is gone with him, in fact, I belive most mutations neccessary for evolution aren't beneficial nor problematic. In order to make most dramatic changes in an organism dramatic mutations are neccessary, and the chances of a breedable population suffering this simultaneously is practically nill. Mutations have to instead slowly accumulate, meaning that natural selection can't have any effect until enough of the right mutations occur which is not only random but seems rather unexpected. If anything, natural selection is inherintly random, and its the playing of the random statistics that allows it to do anything at all.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: JAGedlioneven if an extremely advantageouse mutation occurs, you still need the new individual to seperate from its original population to promote speciation.

No you don't. All that's needed is the non-mutated females liking their new hero , and the mutation to be genetically dominant over its non-mutated form.

You know the concept of dominant and recessive genes, no? This is the main point: You don't need two equally mutated specimen to breed the mutation into the next generation.

 

[el burninator dapeoples]

first let me start off by saying that im not a "creationist", or at least not a club member to that particular organization. i do however choose to believe in god and conceptualize what i believe it to be as well as having the opportunity to endulge myself with personal interpretations on a myriad of other ideas. that being said i think its important to address this because the sense im getting here is that this debate was devised at least partially to provoke an argument from creationists... actually you literally dared them in the last sentence so i guess that part is obvious. what is less than obvious is what your real intention for submitting this post is... is it to share exciting information? or is it to piss in the cherios of a bunch of hardheaded opponents? i guess thats really a question to ask yourself.

everybody knows there is a little animosity and spite driving the age old secularism vs. spiritualism debate, and really, im not raking you over the coals for it. personally, my only problem is that an insinuation is being made which sort of muddles any distinction between the creationists and other people of faith, which immediately disreputes the type of people who have chosen to amalgamate both religious and scientific efforts in an attempt to gain better understanding of our universe. i like to think of myself as one of those people and i can firmly attest to the existence of many religious people who embrace science, curiousity, and discovery. the concept of creation is not the exclusive intellectual property right of christian incorporated and bolder strokes have been painted by others who believe god to be a little more detail oriented.

not every person who has a spiritual posturing in life believes in some grand unified theory of how we came to be, or sees god as some old white dude in a robe. true, there are plenty of badge wearing patrons of the "creationist" movement who dont listen to reason and aptly deny the evidence sitting before them, but far too often i feel this is grounds enough for most secular persons to scoff at the broad spectrum of religious inquiry, and thus stripping any validation it might hold in the intellectual world. it is important to note that just because there is a majority of religious people who share commonly practiced ideologies which often refrain from common sense, doesnt mean that god is wrong, it means peoples interpretation of god may not be correct. keep in mind lots of secular people are just as hardheaded, predjudice, selfish etc. and all the other identical short comings. to put it into further perspective, how about the interpretation of scientific principles? most people cant begin to explain e=mc2 but accept it practically as fact , even though its only a theory. ever read a book on worm holes? makes the muttering people locked away at the funny farm look sane by comparison, yet the principles of that are very welcome as possible in the scientific community.

in an argument, it serves a specific, preemptive purpose to lump entire belief systems into one category, which, in reality we know to be something highly specific and not at all uniform, yet all of us do so knowing better. the truth is that nothing in life is so cut and dry. people paint verbal pictures of how they see concepts like heaven or hell, or even the world and universe. either people choose to relate to it or reject it. most people will base their reaction to new information on how it threatens their old beliefs, and hence, most creationists, dont like to give much leaway. religious and scientific principles alike are not concrete but are subjective. neither should be looked at as absolute policy, even though our need to feel right about something often dictates otherwise.

i dont have to believe in evolution, because change happens regardless of what i or anyone else would think. evolution is a beautiful process, and our species is a tribute to all its tireless efforts. it gives justice to the very essence of life that holds the universe together.

 

[JAGedlion]

1 dominant genes have nothing to do with them being advantageous, and what does that have to do with being equally mutated, a very apple to orange statement to me, hell tons of genes aren't even ressesive or dominant.
2 Ever heard of Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium? I wont even go into it cause I'm really not that good a teacher, especially when I have like 5 minutes until class, and if you do know, I shouldn't need to elaborate.
3 How many even advantangeouse mutations will lead to being more attractive? Come on, if you had a third arm, for some reason I don't see you becoming more popular. If you think of it, many long term advantangeouse mutations could be detrimantal in the short term just for this reason.
4 Last but not least, a population must be isolated to promote speciation, key word speciation, read my post before you start critiquing (yea I know its misspelled, I'll correct it when I get back from class, Anandtech should integrate a spell checker, that would be awsome) it, k?

 

[Peter]

Step away from your narrow idea of "attractive". Think along the lines of "more successful in its environment than the rest of the bunch".

If that third arm had helped Caveman secure extra prey (and thus, draw all the Cavegirls into YOUR cave over the winter, not that other dude's) in times of starvation, and if that third-arm mutation happened to be genetically dominant, we'd all have three arms now.

Evolution however rarely has such a strong mutation be successful, it's a much more gradual process. More like stronger and more versatile arms being promoted through the generations, not extra arms spontaneously appearing from one generation to the next. We have some of that to prove it ... discover the opposable thumb.

 

[SagaLore]

And animal next most related to us is a pig. What is it, like 97% similar genes?

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: dgevert

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: dgevert
I've never seen a creationist respond to this challenge. I've personally posted it on several forums in several discussions, and I've seen it posed by others many times too. Those of you who think evolution has no supporting evidence: what's your explanation, eh?

Why are you asking for a creationist response? We have our own very convincing evidence for our belief, which can explain anything away. None of that matters thought. You still have to convince the greater science community before I would even care. Macro evolution is still alternative and often ridiculed.

The scientific community has accepted macroevolution for about oh, a hundred years now. It is not "still alternative" and it is not "often ridiculed."

A book written thousands of years ago does not count as evidence, sorry.

Who said anything about a book?

And from what I've seen, macroevolution isn't often accepted, micro evolution isn't an issue, and darwinism is often misunderstood. Science community needs to shape up a lot more in the evolution department before I'd ever bother debating anything. Average joe doesn't even know anything about evolution because public school teachers can't even teach it correctly. I can tell you all about creation though

 

[kotss]

Originally posted by: el burninator dapeoples
not every person who has a spiritual posturing in life believes in some grand unified theory of how we came to be, or sees god as some old white dude in a robe. true, there are plenty of badge wearing patrons of the "creationist" movement who dont listen to reason and aptly deny the evidence sitting before them, but far too often i feel this is grounds enough for most secular persons to scoff at the broad spectrum of religious inquiry, and thus stripping any validation it might hold in the intellectual world. it is important to note that just because there is a majority of religious people who share commonly practiced ideologies which often refrain from common sense, doesnt mean that god is wrong, it means peoples interpretation of god may not be correct. keep in mind lots of secular people are just as hardheaded, predjudice, selfish etc. and all the other identical short comings. to put it into further perspective, how about the interpretation of scientific principles? most people cant begin to explain e=mc2 but accept it practically as fact , even though its only a theory. ever read a book on worm holes? makes the muttering people locked away at the funny farm look sane by comparison, yet the principles of that are very welcome as possible in the scientific community.

I think the bulk of your statement is very well worded and very open-minded. I will not bother to argue
about most of the merits of you statements. The one thing I do see as short sighted is the bolded
statement. (most people cant begin to explain e=mc2 but accept it practically as fact , even though its only a theory.).

I do have a good grasp of what the relationship is between mass and energy.

The reason people can accept it as fact is because it is fact and has been proven over and over.
The "damaging statement is that you come off with the pithy "even though its only a theory" which is used
whenever evolution comes up. E=MC(^2) is what came out of theory of relativity. E=MC(^2) has been
proven time and time again. It is fact. A theory can be fact if all of its postulates are true. Saying it is
just a theory even though proven derides all the work having gone into proving the theory. Saying
Gravity is just a theory is correct, but that does not mean it is any less real.

Even though this is off-topic of the thread I felt I had to speak about this misdirection.

 

[Peter]

The main point being: Scientific theories are growing stronger in their assumed correctness as people try to poke holes in them for decades and even centuries - as long as they fail. Einstein's material has been exceptional in that regard.

Religion in turn just tries to find more positive proof while at the same time carefully discarding and eradicating all evidence of contradictory findings, all the way to rewriting their own "only true" book numerous times, oppression, nondisclosure of inside "knowledge", etc. etc.

See the difference?

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: malak
Who said anything about a book?

You did. Your book is the only "convincing evidence" you have, and it doesn't even count.

And from what I've seen, macroevolution isn't often accepted, micro evolution isn't an issue, and darwinism is often misunderstood.

From what you've seen, you haven't seen much, apparently. "Macroevolution" is mainly a caricature of the creationists. Common ancestry pretty much requires "macroevolution" as you mean it to even be possible, and it's been accepted as fact for a hundred years now. The creationists have you fooled: there is no scientific controversy over evolution. Zip, nadda, none.

Science community needs to shape up a lot more in the evolution department before I'd ever bother debating anything.

If science tried to meet creationism's shifting goalpost standards, science would never get anywhere. This is just a cop out because you're ignorant of the subject.

Average joe doesn't even know anything about evolution because public school teachers can't even teach it correctly.

Which is largely your fault, Creationist. The Christian Conservative movement has raped science education in this country so badly it isn't funny.

I can tell you all about creation though

I have better things to do than to listen to you preach to me about ancient goatherder myth. Sorry.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
And animal next most related to us is a pig. What is it, like 97% similar genes?

Given how much among all animals is quite similiar, this isn't surprising, though pigs certainly aren't the "next most related to us." 97% is pretty different - most members of the ape family are 99% similiar.

 

[JAGedlion]

Originally posted by: Peter....

There's been so much in between, I hope my fake quote kinda elucidates who I'm responding to without adding too much lost space.

The problem is, your situtation requires there be a famine. Lets take sickle cell anemia for example. In the short term it is a bad thing, and if too few people have it (random mutation), there is a chance that it will be eradicated from the gene pool due to its negative qualities. Only if there is an outbreak of malaria will the mutation be selected for at all (even this only increases chances of reproduction, who knows, a rino might still just run the guy over), so in order for the gene to really drive change many random events must happen simultaneously. But in our discussion here you must also note that we are talking about from monkeys to humans. This also requires speciation which generally requires numerouse more random events to occur.

Seperately:
And as for there being no argument about evolution, well, though I'll admit I do belive evolution is how things are done, I absolutley dont agree that this is unquestionable. The number of random events that have to occur so perfectly is astounding. The concepts make sense, yes, but it is still undeniable that we still 1 have no real idea how life came about, or 2 even really how earth developed the proper environment. Furthermore evolution can only really be observed on a very small scale, though it is easly observed as such, and it is undeniable that humans really don't go back far enough to have experienced much evolution first hand, let alone record it, it doesn't make you right, just less probably wrong. Evolution is kinda like string theory. It can't really be proved till you either go back in time or somehow come up with billions of years of detailed accounts of life. Its just when we look at what we think happened, it seems to make sense.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: dgevert

Originally posted by: malak
Who said anything about a book?

You did. Your book is the only "convincing evidence" you have, and it doesn't even count.

I never once mentioned a book. Way to assume. Obviously your mind is closed on this matter and discussing it is pointless with you.

Average joe doesn't even know anything about evolution because public school teachers can't even teach it correctly.

Which is largely your fault, Creationist. The Christian Conservative movement has raped science education in this country so badly it isn't funny.

That's not my fault. I'm all for science. What they teach in schools today is not correct often and they rarely teach any other theories.

I can tell you all about creation though

I have better things to do than to listen to you preach to me about ancient goatherder myth. Sorry.

Quick to flame, aren't you? I know the problems with macroevolution, know it's not fact, and know even in the science community it's still just a theory and always will be. However, you clearly know nothing about creationism, and don't want to know either. Seems you are here just to post flamebait. Grow up.

 

[Gilby]

Quick to flame, aren't you? I know the problems with macroevolution, know it's not fact, and know even in the science community it's still just a theory and always will be. However, you clearly know nothing about creationism, and don't want to know either. Seems you are here just to post flamebait. Grow up.

That, folks, is about as sophisticated as the creationists get. Come up with, say, over a century of evidence, and they close their eyes, plug their ears and say, "LA! LA! LA! I'm not listening!" Then they say that "evolutionists" haven't shown them any evidence. Oh. And don't miss the oh so precious, "grow up."

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Gilby

Quick to flame, aren't you? I know the problems with macroevolution, know it's not fact, and know even in the science community it's still just a theory and always will be. However, you clearly know nothing about creationism, and don't want to know either. Seems you are here just to post flamebait. Grow up.

That, folks, is about as sophisticated as the creationists get. Come up with, say, over a century of evidence, and they close their eyes, plug their ears and say, "LA! LA! LA! I'm not listening!" Then they say that "evolutionists" haven't shown them any evidence. Oh. And don't miss the oh so precious, "grow up."

You didn't read anything I said. You are the close minded one. Both of you are just trying to find something in my text to excite you enough to blast me. And you wonder why a creationist never bothers to respond to these threads...

 

[JAGedlion]

I must say, I love how everyone is saying how wrong the creationist is, without giving any reasons that hold any water, and the responses of the creationist that are similarly empty. Its like, lets yell at each other cause I'm right and you're wrong so hah! Come on, if you want to have a discussion, discuss, say something like, we've never seen speciation firsthand only its effects, or that evolutionary principles seem to support the current situation in the world, the birds from the galapagos being a prime example of different species trying to fill seperate niches or something, just no more of this, I'm right you're wrong stuff.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: malak
I never once mentioned a book. Way to assume. Obviously your mind is closed on this matter and discussing it is pointless with you.

Fine, I'll make it a question. Where is the evidence for creationism? Real, actual evidence, not an argument from ignorance or pseudophilosophical blather?

That's not my fault. I'm all for science. What they teach in schools today is not correct often and they rarely teach any other theories.

Any other theories about the origin of species (of species, not of life?) There are no other scientific theories, and an in-depth discussion of punctuated equilibrium vs. gradual evolution is a bit more in depth and above the level of a high school biology course.

Quick to flame, aren't you?

Not my fault you're offended by the truth.

I know the problems with macroevolution, know it's not fact, and know even in the science community it's still just a theory and always will be.

So do all other creationists, but every single one I've ever run into didn't have a clue what they are talking about.

Common descent/macroevolution is not "just a theory," it is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how it happened, but either way, evolution between species did occur. This is an uncontroversial FACT in the scientific community, and you won't find a credible biologist who believes otherwise.

Even Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box," a centerpiece of the politically-motivated Intelligent Design movement, accepts common descent.

However, you clearly know nothing about creationism, and don't want to know either. Seems you are here just to post flamebait. Grow up.

I'm here to discuss science. Creationism isn't science. It's not a "Highly Technical" topic. You want me to discuss creationism with you? Fine, I can take it over to Politics, where I can discuss the dishonest motives of the creationist movement and the credentials of its leaders. Would you like to do that, or would it offend you to learn that the people who have been preaching to you are liars?

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: JAGedlion
I must say, I love how everyone is saying how wrong the creationist is, without giving any reasons that hold any water, and the responses of the creationist that are similarly empty. Its like, lets yell at each other cause I'm right and you're wrong so hah! Come on, if you want to have a discussion, discuss, say something like, we've never seen speciation firsthand only its effects, or that evolutionary principles seem to support the current situation in the world, the birds from the galapagos being a prime example of different species trying to fill seperate niches or something, just no more of this, I'm right you're wrong stuff.

I've already given the reasons for why the creationist is wrong. Once again they have failed the chromosome challenge. But hey, if you want me to go overkill...

29 Evidences for Macroevolution
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Observed Instances of Speciation
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
Archaeopteryx

I think part of the problem here is that mainstream science has ignored creationism for too long. Their reasons for doing so were valid in theory...the creationist movement just wasn't worth a response...but they underestimated the political power it would gain.

 

[JAGedlion]

Though I must say, I only clicked on two of your articles, the third and forth ones, and because I am way too lazy to actually check if we have the journals in our libr... wait, you had to make it harder than that, just the author and date, gah!, so I only really paid much attention to the first. (sorry, essays that don't look well backed up, or that I can't observe its proof don't satisfy me, unless I write them )
And if you read the first paragragh, it says only one thing crystal clear, that you my good man like to play wordgames. When a creationist refutes "evolution" they mean the mechanism which your own article states clearly is just a theory, DUH COME ON!
Evolution as defined by webster.com (sorry, the dictionary.com definition is not only terrible, but hopelessly lacking) for you:
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING
...
3 : the process of working out or developing
...
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
notice that I skipped the "biological" definition, and yet the word seems wholly defined? Guess what, the word was around before biological evolution was ever discussed. (notice how my acting superior to you has accomplished nothing?)
This evolution as listed here is taken as fact, I'd say even by most creationists, hell by this definition evolution only means that the world has changed over time! This evolution, the evolution that merely says, some species have gone extinct, that there was a time when there was no man, etc., is the only part of evolution that can be said to be fact not theory! (though still, I have trouble saying it is 100% certain, after all, even carbon dating has been shown to have its flaws)
This, a creationist will not refute, hell every one would tell you that man was made after the animals regardless of the timeline!
So how about this you stop trying to insult people because it serves no purpose as you can see from my response and stop pretending as if you have to be right cause you say so, seriously, get over yourself. Evolution as the rest of your articles support (by their titles anyway) is evolution by a different definition, they try to support certaint mechanisms and explain how it occurs etc, and this, as your own article mentions, is completely up for discussion.