Finally, the pesky "Theory" of Evolution, which has become the religion of choice for those who came from monkeys, has been proven a "fact"!
Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah.
Warlock
Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution
by zagor 142 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
kid-A
"I have never seen any scientific evidence of a species DNA aquiring NEW information."
>Thats because "new information" has NOTHING to do with molecular evolution, anatomical or neuronal evolution. Mutations are merely the expression of ALREADY EXISTING information in a new format or template. Take an intro biology course if you dont understand this basic principle of genetics. You've been reading too much Watchtower science textbooks.
"The lactose gene was already there. "
>Yup! Exactly. See point above.
"The fact that it made news is because of the thousands of instances of DNA mutations causing negative consequenses, this may be one of thousands that served a purpose. Not evidence to me but more an accident than the norm."
>And so? Random genetic mutations are obviously RANDOM, and are only acted upon by ENVIRONMENTAL conditions. Your point has no bearing on any evolutionary process at the micro or macro levels.
"I will never understand how anyone can deduce that the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy does not apply to all life forms and organic matter. It is a scientific, totally proven LAW of nature. "
>No, its not. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with biological or molecular processes in any pertinent way to evolutionary processes. And no, it is not a "law" of anything.
"Everything is winding down, everything decays into smaller particles. Our own DNA is decaying into more and more mutations until we too will die off as a species."
>Interesting, could you please provide PUBLISHED, replicated research reports from a reputable scientific journal demonstrating conclusively that "our own DNA is decaying into more and moremutations" ??? I would be very curious to read your source material.
"There is no scientific evidence that we are evolving into a higher life form. On the contrary the evidence shows us devolving into a violent species headed for total nuclear annialation."
>Nor should there be. Again, this statement underscores your complete lack of understanding of how evolution works. First, can you even define a "higher" life form? This is a COMPLETELY subjective opinion. Indeed, I would argue that sharks are far better adapted to their environments and environmental needs than humans are. There is no imaginary "upward" trajectory in evolution. Again, what EVIDENCE are you referring to about human DEVOLUTION? Or is this just a personal, unsubstantiated opionion, full of fundy sound and fury and signifying nothing?
"I was part of the human genome project and my DNA line has grown so unstable I would not be alive but for regular medical procedures."
>This statement is complete nonsense. DNA does not "grow" unstable. Not to mention the fact that there is no such thing as a "DNA line". You possess a "genome" which is by very definition, a permanent part of your cellular processes. In addition, there are NO "medical procedures" that currently exist that can influence an entire genome. Where the f**k are you getting this bizarre, misinformation from? Kevin Trudeau??? LOL.....
"If there can be found one step forward in science, there will be five steps backwards associated with it."
>No problem. Given your low opionion of science, I suggest you unplug your computer (the creation of scientists), stop using the internet (the creation of scientists), throw out all your electrical appliances (all created by scientists), and move into your nearest cave with some sticks and a few matches. Next time you get sick, find your nearest witch doctor and have him cure you with some magical hexes, or better yet, pray to Jesus and see how you make out. You'll save a fortune at the pharmacy, lest you should be tempted to trust the technology and research of us idiot scientists....
-
Apostate Kate
I don't read Watchtower science books thank you.
I am an example of what happens to human DNA when the code is not replicated free of mutations. The gene is the C282Y I am homozygous and carry this mutated gene. I would be dead if not for regular medical procedures.
You misunderstood my what I meant about 1 step forward and 5 back. I was not talking about science in general but being able to prove evolution via scientific knowledge.
Mitochondrial defects have been associated with severe neurodegenerative disorders [2], and, more recently, with primary hereditary neoplasiasPLoS Medicine - Mitochondrial DNA Mutations in Cancer
Now, some 40 years later, researchers have discovered a significant increase in the genetic mutation rates of several generations of families that lived nearby. The findings appear in the current issue of the journal Science.Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: Cold War Weapons Testing Increased Human DNA Mutation Rate
Thus, oxidative modification and mutation of mtDNAoccur with great ease, and the extent of such alterations of mtDNAincreases exponentially with ageOxidative stress and mitochondrial DNA mutations in human aging -- Wei 217 (1): 53 -- Experimental Biology and Medicine
Smoking causes DNA damageCAT.INIST.FR
Whereas the 4733T>C mutation predicts a synonymous change and is probably not the reason for the observed cytochrome c oxidase deficiency, it does show that a single mutation is able to persist in newly forming crypts. Furthermore, this analysis provides evidence that crypts divide by fission.Mitochondrial DNA mutations are established in human colonic stem cells, and mutated clones expand by crypt fission
Now, researchers have observed that high levels of naturally occurring radiation significantly increase the number of mutations in human DNA.Radioactive sand causes mutations in human DNA
All I'm saying is this lactose discovery does not prove to me that DNA can mutate into higher life forms. In science all I find is a species specific DNA codes that are quite elaborate. A break in the code like a missing chromasome causes big problems.
Peace~Kate
-
TD
Hi Kate,
What do you mean by "species specific DNA?"
An example I've given in these discussions several times is the Cama. This creature is a cross (By artificial insemination) between the Camel and the Llama http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9801/20/cama.ap/ having the short ears and long tail of the camel, no hump and the cloven hooves of the llama.
The Camel and Llama are not only different species, they are classified as different genera as well. and (Camelus dromedarius and Lama glama respectively.)
Fertility between two species proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that these two species had a common ancestor and that speciation does occur -- at least to this extent.
-
Apostate Kate
Kinda like crossing a donkey with a horse to get a sterile mule.
Just do a search on "species specific DNA" and many scientific abstracts will come up discussing it.
-
TD
Kate,
Kinda like crossing a donkey with a horse to get a sterile mule.
Yes! Except that with this and other equid crosses (horse/zebra onager/ass onager/horse etc.) there is much less disparity in size and appearance between the two parent animals.
Just do a search on "species specific DNA" and many scientific abstracts will come up discussing it.
Will any of these abstracts support the Creationist concept of species immutability? .
-
Apostate Kate
Will any of these abstracts support the Creationist concept of species immutability? .
LOL no it is a scientific term.
Isolation and characterization of a species-specific DNA probe for Candida albicans.
-
Leolaia
Apostate Kate.....All those examples are instances of mutations that have negative consequences. As I pointed out yesterday, this is selectively biased. I could similarly point out all the instances in which driving has led to fatal accidents and conclude that driving only has negative consequences. What about all the mutations that have neutral consequences (which may later acquire positive consequences through selection, just as is the case with the lactase gene) or those that are beneficial (see, for instance, http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html)? Mutations can be detrimental in one ecological setting and become advantageous in another (and vice versa); think of the sickle-cell hemoglobin and the icefish examples I gave yesterday. Sickle-cell hemoglobin affords protection from malaria and the anti-hemoglobin mutation that allowed icefish to survive in freezing water would be absolutely fatal (i.e. as a birth defect) had it occurred in a human. Another example is the mutation CCR5-delta 32 which has disabled the CCR5 (chemokine) receptor in immune system macrophages of people of northern European descent. This mutation produces malfunction in the ability of CCR5 to respond to infection and so can be considered as a harmful mutation. But it also turns out that the pathogens that cause HIV, smallpox, and the bubonic plague utilize the CCR5 receptor, and thus the mutation (especially when inherited from both parents) actually protects a person against infection from HIV and other diseases. It has been hypothesized that the mutation generalized in the northern European population (up to 14% of the population in Sweden) through ancient and medieval epidemics such as the Black Death, the survivors of which were more likely to have the mutation than those who were infected with plague and smallpox. The mutation however is not shared by native Americans and most Africans, showing that it arose separately in Europe.
All I'm saying is this lactose discovery does not prove to me that DNA can mutate into higher life forms.
Why should it? It takes a lot more evidence (such as comparing DNA strings across closely related species) to demonstrate that....see the links I provided on the previous page for some examples of mutations in primate macroevolution. This comment is like someone saying that the discovery of a tiny fossilized bone doesn't prove that such animals as dinosaurs once existed. It's a part of the overall picture. Naturally there are literally tons of additional bones that demonstrate this. The lactose finding must be put in context with all the other discoveries that have been made over the past century or two.
In science all I find is a species specific DNA codes that are quite elaborate... Just do a search on "species specific DNA" and many scientific abstracts will come up discussing it.
But I'd bet that none of them construe "species-specific" genomes as individually independent and immutable. Let me give another analogy to illustrate. One could note that French, Spanish, Romanian, Italian, and Portuguese have very similar vocabularies and grammars (in contrast to other languages), and yet each grammar is "language-specific". Does this mean that each of these languages were individually created with their present grammars? Does it mean there were no linguistic changes (i.e. mutations) that differentiated an ancestor language into the present daughter tongues in existence today? In fact, you can compare the vocabularies and grammars of all the Romance languages and reconstruct what the ancestor language (i.e. vulgar Latin) looked like. Just because each language in a family has its own "language-specific grammar" doesn't mean that they did not "evolve" from a common ancestor.
M.J.... That's a pretty interesting website. Since the discipline of paleogenetics is in its infancy, I have to wonder if the negative verdicts are a little premature (since present questions may be clarified via further research and analysis). I also an skeptical of the statistical calculation of mutation rates. But I think the panspermia advocates are important for challenging the status quo on whether evolution occurs in a closed or open system. As to the claim that "a convincing account of even one wholly new gene with an unrelated specific new function ... has not been given," I guess that depends on what is considered "convincing". I have already noted some examples in the literature, but of course I lack the expertise to critique them in terms of "convincingness"....I may instead perhaps note such review articles as the following piece ("Duplication and Divergence: The Evolution of New Genes and Old Ideas," by JS Taylor & J Raes, Annual Review of Genetics, 2004, pp. 615-643):
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.genet.38.072902.092831?cookieSet=1
-
Apostate Kate
macro micro closed system....
One persons logic is another's chaos I guess.
The link you posted yesterday would not open for me but I doubt that it is scientific proof of species-specific DNA evolving into a higher more complicated life form. I'll try it again...
-
LittleToe
Kid:Since you've put youself on a cleric-like pedestal by designating yourself a "scientist", I'm going to take a potshot at knocking you down a peg or two.
There is absolutely no reason for you to be so disparaging of Kate. She explained that she's been part of a human genome project and explained in layman's terms her own condition, in the manner of an explanation she probably received. Just because she isn't using the precise technical term you prefer gives you no license to mistreat her in this manner.
You know only too well what she's attempting to describe, so why act so pompous? You are actually discouraging interest in a subject you love by your [lack of] manner[s]. Do you really want to become the "scientific" version of something you detest so much (i.e. religious evangelist)?
Just wondering