Denial of evolution

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by river-wind, Jul 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    What about these molecules that have the ability to turn genes "off" so to speak?
    It was explored in a PBS documentary about hereditary cholestrol which is linked to short life spans...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Yes, genes are regulated. Regulation, like the order of gene expression, and suppression, means you look like you do (much like a lot of other animals, body plan-wise). You share the same "core programming", that gave you a spine, neurons, arms and legs, etc.

    Having the gene, and doing something with it (or choosing not to), is a lot like owning a lot of cars, and only driving one or two around, sort of thing.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,430
    Adaptation does not "make" small changes - it is small changes of particular consequence.

    DNA is infinitely modifiable - there is no lengh or sequence of DNA which has been demonstrated to be unavailable to a series of small changes in a random walk from any given sequence of codons.

    Experiments do not show any limitations in the possible mutations available within a given sequence of DNA - all sixteen point mutations are always available, for example. RNA likewise.

    The distinction of "Order" is completely arbitrary - the name refers to a completely arbitrary classification scheme which is invented by humans for their own convenience, and has no other reality outside of evolutionary theory. No mutation is made impossible because its effects would result in a different classification for the resulting organism. Classification schemes do not impose restrictions on living beings - it's the other way around. The map is not the territory.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Fine it's small change.

    but do those small changes lead to larger leaps?


    Experimentation did show mutation through irradiation which was forced. If the mutations were not exponetial and the same mutations recurred it implies a limit on DNA alteration through mutation.

    So again.
    Is there no difference between a frog and dog?
     
  8. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Given enough time and enough individuals to express varied genotypes for selection, yes. That's the guts of evolutionary theory.
    Have a look at how infectious bacteria evolve, and develop new "weapons", by adapting old ones.
    You could say that the prokaryotes evolved motility because it's just too efficient, it was an inevitable outcome.

    Or you could say it happened "accidentally", because certain chemicals got together. But were they brought together? That's a different concept, actively bringing things together, transporting them around.
     
  9. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Yes, I do understand that.

    Yes but this is such a small scale.
    Yet that's the proven part. It's the application to the "total" transformation that hasn't been related by the evidence. That's what I question.
    I want to remain open to the explanation but I see problems with the intial premise when applied to every creature.
     
  10. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    But you evolved from what was essentially a single-cell organism, a protozoan, into a vertebrate, then a mammal, before you got to human. It only took 9 months, because of the billion or so years that protozoans have been practising, at evolving into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then reptiles, then mammals, then humans.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,430
    Enough of them are large leaps - the difference between a frog and a dog, say.
     
  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I've been chastised for calling the development of an embryo "evolution" since it all happens to the body of a single individual. It is just "gestation." Evolution is a (very long) series of individuals passing their genes on to the next generation and having mutations or selections cause tiny changes from one generation to the next.

    What we see in an accelerated video sonogram of a human embryo is a dramatic recreation of evolution, as well as nearly incontrovertible evidence of the reality of evolution. (After all, if those changes can take place in one organism how hard could it have been for them to take place over billions of years?) But properly speaking it is not evolution. Stop calling it that before you get nailed for it too.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The large leaps were merely concatenations of millions of small jumps.

    The frog and the dog aren't really in the same evolutionary line, so the "leap" analogy isn't quite apt there. The frog is a relatively short leap from their common ancestor and the dog is a relatively long leap. But in both cases they're really series of short jumps.

    We've got good evidence of possibly the most recent speciation among large animals, the evolution of the polar bear from the grizzly bear. The change in dentition was one of those "short jumps", and it happened only about 10,000 years ago. And the original grizzly still thrives.
     
  13. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Not entirely, by chance and circumstance, it plays a part, and it's important.
    You keep forgetting that organisms are agents, and collectively are also an agent, or agency, that competes and co-operates, individually and collectively. Bacteria aren't communal but they are co-operative. And just by having DNA to get mutated, by whatever causes, means it's "bound" to change the owner - if some change means a new interaction appears, or a new way of fitting old parts together that is advantageous, that's the principle of biological evolution in action.

    Therefore the cards that are dealt blindly, aren't governed entirely by chance; some of the genetic variability is deliberate, bacteria exchange bits of their DNA. DNA itself is inherently variable (mutable), because of the way the cell repairs it and divides it. The owner of the DNA gets to shuffle it a little too.

    When a protein's shape is "wrong", because of point mutations or loss of part of the sequence, it fits differently; it might connect with other proteins that it didn't connect with before.
    The "connecting together" is not a random event, it's purposeful.

    Right. I was trying to make the point that we're really just specialised protozoans.
     
  14. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    475
    I have not forgotten it at all. They are part of the circumstance.
     
  15. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    How come life can be adaptive, but not purposeful?

    Can anyone explain this? I don't understand how adaptation can be without adaptivity.

    There are one or two contributors who seem assured of their understanding of the tricky subject of Life and its evolution. Maybe one can point to the logic problem here.
    If lifeforms can use things, is life purposeless - i.e. it doesn't use things just because it uses them...this must make sense to someone here.
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Moderator note: Myles, Enmos, Iasion Please avoid pointless comments.
    Personal attacks will not be tolerated in Biology and Genetics forum.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2008
  17. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Purpose implies a plan. an intention or something of the kind. Evolution is blind. It gives rise to random change. Sometimes the change gives the organism an advantage in a new or changing environment, sometimes not. Therefore, there are failures as well as successes. Looked at post hoc, the successes may be seen as if they were planned but this is only because we are generally unaware of the failures. We see successful adaptions and infer a plan where there was none.
     
  18. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    You still haven't explained how life and the way it evolves is without purpose.

    Adaptation is not adaptive...
    Use is not purposeful...
    There is no planning, no strategy involved...

    Is that right? Adaptation doesn't involve planning, or use, or purpose?
    I was under the impression that adapt means use, and that adaptation means purpose. Obviously this is incorrect. But why is adaptation adaptationless? When an organism uses something, it isn't using it?
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2008
  19. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    I think the problem is a semantic one. To adapt can mean to fit in which doiesn't necessarily have anything to do with use . In the present context, adaptation is what we see after the event ,when we have evidence that an organism changed in a manner which gave it an advantage such that it survied when others of the same kind did not. It is at this point that a purpose is inferred.

    If we look at the wider picture, some organisms can be seen to fail to adapt, Would we regard such failures as part of a plan ? I doubt it , unless we believed in some external agent pulling the strings as it were. But evolutionary theory obviates the need for such an agency.
     
  20. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Evolutionary theory obviates the need for an external agency?
    So Evolution is the "external agency"?
    Life just sits back, and evolves because of "Evolution"?
    Life doesn't use anything, or adapt anything, evolution does it all?

    Evolution must be like something that stirs a big pot. Life is just a bunch of passive chemicals, that would dissipate, if Evolution wasn't there, stirring away.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2008
  21. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Evolution is process that has no goals. You seem determined to find an agency where there is none.

    If, during replication, a mistake occurs-say an organism axquires a new gene- it is not planned or controlled; it just happens. If you want to insist that the evolutionary process is an agent in some sense, so be it. But is it a blind, purposeless agent. So, insisting that there is an agent at work adds nothing to the explanation.
     
  22. Transmute Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    True, it is assumed that it runs on random mutations, it definitely looks as though it does (explains external testicles being designed by a logical god?) but it impossible to disprove god(s) is not pulling the strings.
     
  23. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Evolution is not "an agency". Selection is an agency, so is adaptation, and variation of genotypes. Life is active, life therefore can't be any agency...??
    Natural selection is blind. Evolution is blind the way a roulette croupier is blind, or a casino is blind.

    Organisms are not blind. Organisms are the things that evolve. Evolution doesn't do it for them.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page