[_ Old Earth _] HUMAN GENOME PROJECT: QUANTITATIVE DISPROOF OF EVOLUTION

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Humm, I always thought Quath's name was really Loki, now I know.
colros: :silly: :smt030 :infinity: :smt072

 

[blunthitta4life]

I think its amusing that Lewis posts a "scientific" article and doesn't discuss any science, but just talks circles.

 

[Featherbop]

I think its amusing that Lewis posts a "scientific" article and doesn't discuss any science, but just talks circles.

Well, in case you didn't know, that is one of creationists methods: Mention some tidbit of science, claim it substantiates creationism even though it doesn't, and then retreat or reiterate.

Silly creationists :-D

 

[Lewis]

Thus is the crux of all Christian arguments "I have nothing intelligent to say any further, so my God's gonna beat you up!"

Yeah if you don't repent and come to Him' you will be on fire too.

 

[Lewis]

I think its amusing that Lewis posts a "scientific" article and doesn't discuss any science, but just talks circles.

Because I said all that I want to say at this time. When I feel like it' I will respond' sometimes I do not want to talk to you' nonbelievers. You got that ? Sometimes I just get plain tired of you people going against us all the time. And a break is needed away from you.

 

[Cirbryn]

Because I said all that I want to say at this time. When I feel like it' I will respond' sometimes I do not want to talk to you' nonbelievers. You got that ? Sometimes I just get plain tired of you people going against us all the time. And a break is needed away from you.

Here's a thought: If you can't handle dealing with people who disagree with you, maybe you shouldn't start arguments with them in the first place.

 

[mondar]

Can anyone explain in detail or demonstrate a mutation that caused an increase in the gene pool found in the universe?

 

[Cirbryn]

Can anyone explain in detail or demonstrate a mutation that caused an increase in the gene pool found in the universe?

As I understand it, “Gene pool†refers to all the copies of all the genes in a population of breeding individuals. It’s a simplified way of thinking about how gene copies will recombine from generation to generation. Instead of worrying about which specific individuals might mate with which, you just proceed as if you could toss all their genes into a big pool, which you then stir up (assuming random mating) and then randomly pull out copies of the gene you’re interested in, two at a time. Each group of two gene copies pulled out of the pool represents a new individual of the next generation. This let’s you do things like compare the number of aa individuals in the parent generation to the expected number in the next generation.

So it doesn’t really make sense to say “the gene pool found in the universeâ€Â. It’s not like there’s only one. Also, to increase a gene pool simply means to increase the total number of gene copies, so that would involve increasing the number of individuals in the population. It wouldn’t involve a mutation, except possibly indirectly if the mutation allowed the population to increase.

Are you looking for an example of a mutation that allowed a particular version of a gene to became more common in a gene pool due to natural selection?

If so, here’s a good one that’s applicable to us:
“Gene Mutation Linked To Cognition Is Found Only In Humansâ€Â

 

[mondar]

As I understand it, “Gene pool†refers to all the copies of all the genes in a population of breeding individuals. It’s a simplified way of thinking about how gene copies will recombine from generation to generation. Instead of worrying about which specific individuals might mate with which, you just proceed as if you could toss all their genes into a big pool, which you then stir up (assuming random mating) and then randomly pull out copies of the gene you’re interested in, two at a time. Each group of two gene copies pulled out of the pool represents a new individual of the next generation. This let’s you do things like compare the number of aa individuals in the parent generation to the expected number in the next generation.

So it doesn’t really make sense to say “the gene pool found in the universeâ€Â. It’s not like there’s only one. Also, to increase a gene pool simply means to increase the total number of gene copies, so that would involve increasing the number of individuals in the population. It wouldn’t involve a mutation, except possibly indirectly if the mutation allowed the population to increase.

Are you looking for an example of a mutation that allowed a particular version of a gene to became more common in a gene pool due to natural selection?

If so, here’s a good one that’s applicable to us:
“Gene Mutation Linked To Cognition Is Found Only In Humansâ€Â

I am not asking how you can move one gene from a certain part of the gene pool and recombine it with other genes. In that case, all genes were pre-existing. I am looking for a mutation that makes a brand new gene which enables a creature to do something it did not do before involving a gene never before seen. I am not looking for a new recombination of pre-existing genes.

 

[mondar]

Concerning the article, the person found a certain protein in humans that is not found in chimps. He states that this is a mutation. Can he demonstrate this claim?

 

[cyberjosh]

However, evolution is also natural selection. So that is an algorithm that makes evolution directed.

Quath, could you explain your algorithm idea? Do you mean to imply that nature has some innate law of selection? Because evolution (supposedly) took place over a long period of time and the conditions would have changed over time in different enviroments, including unexplained catastophes, etc. so how then could any natural pattern be deduced from a chaotic interaction of life with its envoronment (which is quite dynamic). In some cases the fittest could have been killed while the "imp" survived. Freak things like this happened, and gene degeneracy over generations shows just that: degeneracy, rather than useful progression of species. Mutations are erratic and abberational and rarely pass on from the parent to the child, and progression is not likely "naturally" speaking. Can you explain all these diverse, dynamic, and often chaotic elements with some mere (yet no doubt arguably complex) algorithm which fits a "pattern for progression & survival"? I see such a "natural algorith" as statistically impossible, and unreasonable.

God would be a far better explanation for order and progression. If anything God's design and oversight is your "algorithm".

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Cirbryn]

I am not asking how you can move one gene from a certain part of the gene pool and recombine it with other genes. In that case, all genes were pre-existing. I am looking for a mutation that makes a brand new gene which enables a creature to do something it did not do before involving a gene never before seen. I am not looking for a new recombination of pre-existing genes.

OK, that’s what this shows, assuming we’re using the words the same way. A gene is a string of DNA, several hundred base pairs long. (A “base†is the same as a nucleotide – A, C, G, or T. The bases pair up, A to T and G to C, to form the rungs of the DNA ladder.) So if by “brand new gene†you mean a completely new string of DNA that pops into the gene pool with no precursers, then this doesn’t show that. But evolution doesn’t work that way anyway. If you intended “brand new gene†to mean a slight change in the string of bases in a pre-existing gene, then that’s what this shows. This brand new gene, which is a slight modification of a pre-existing gene, produced a beneficial adaptation in our early human ancestors. Because of that beneficial adaptation the new gene was naturally selected and became the standard in our species.

Concerning the article, the person found a certain protein in humans that is not found in chimps. He states that this is a mutation. Can he demonstrate this claim?

I don’t have access to the original journal article, so I can only comment based on the review I linked to, but it says there: “Gene sequencing revealed a mutation specific to humans that triggers a change in the splicing pattern of the neuropsin gene, creating a new splicing site and a longer protein.†So based on that, it’s not just that he found a new protein that isn’t found in chimps. He found the mutation in the pre-existing gene that caused that new protein to be produced. The talk of a new splicing site assumedly refers to the fact that proteins are produced by first transcribing the order of the gene’s bases to a strand of messenger RNA (mRNA) and then using that mRNA to construct the protein. Often parts (called introns) are spliced out of the mRNA before it’s translated into a protein. So this mutation of a pre-existing gene changed where the splice occurred in the mRNA, which changed the amino acids in the resulting protein, which changed how that protein functions with regard to learning and memory.

 

[Barbarian]

Nothing in evolution is de novo. Everything is a modification of something pre-existing.

And evolutionary theory doesn't say how the first organism appeared. Darwin merely said that he thought God did it.

 

[Texasgirl]

Ironically, the head of the human genome project, a scientist with impeccable credientials would disagree that the project disproves evolution, very much. One might want to actually go to the source and to a well-respected scientist when discussing scientific information. Francis Collins wrote "The Language of God", is an evangelical Christian, and has often been misquoted and taken out of context by many wishing to separate evolution from Christianity. His response when directly asked about those who dismiss evolution as not being supported by science -- "I think that’s what many well-intentioned, sincere believers have done. The shelves of many evangelicals are full of books that point out the flaws in evolution, discuss it only as a theory, and almost imply that there’s a conspiracy here to avoid the fact that evolution is actually flawed. All of those books, unfortunately, are based upon conclusions that no reasonable biologist would now accept. Evolution is about as solid a theory as one will ever see."

Entire interview with Collins can be found at:
http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fell ... _believer/

By the way -- 'the language of God' is how he describes the marvels of the human genome, the very definition of human life itself.

 

[Barbarian]

Well said. Always nice to see a fellow Texan on the board. Stick around and contribute.

 

[Texasgirl]

Well said. Always nice to see a fellow Texan on the board. Stick around and contribute.

Thanks for your welcome. I'll be around but won't be a marathon poster by any means. This thread caught my eye because I happen to be a real fan of Francis Collins.

 

[jwu]

Quath, could you explain your algorithm idea? Do you mean to imply that nature has some innate law of selection? Because evolution (supposedly) took place over a long period of time and the conditions would have changed over time in different enviroments, including unexplained catastophes, etc. so how then could any natural pattern be deduced from a chaotic interaction of life with its envoronment (which is quite dynamic).

We observe many species going extinct exactly because they fail to adapt to those changing environments, and others thrive because they succeed at it.

In some cases the fittest could have been killed while the "imp" survived. Freak things like this happened,

True, but in the end it's a statistical process. Even minor differential reproductive success makes an allele spread surprisingly fast. It's quite simple math.

and gene degeneracy over generations shows just that: degeneracy, rather than useful progression of species.

Many beneficial mutations have been directly observed, both in humans and other species.

Mutations are erratic and abberational and rarely pass on from the parent to the child, and progression is not likely "naturally" speaking. Can you explain all these diverse, dynamic, and often chaotic elements with some mere (yet no doubt arguably complex) algorithm which fits a "pattern for progression & survival"? I see such a "natural algorith" as statistically impossible, and unreasonable.

God would be a far better explanation for order and progression. If anything God's design and oversight is your "algorithm".

God Bless,

~Josh

Mutation and selection are an incredibly powerful tool. Take a look at this video, it shows a simulation of a genetic algorithm evolving a functioning clock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Other genetic algorithms also have come up with solutions for engineering problems which exceed the best human made designs.