Genetic evidence for "macroevolution"?

by fodeja 14 Replies latest jw friends

  • fodeja
    fodeja
    FIRST GENETIC EVIDENCE UNCOVERED OF HOW MAJOR CHANGES
    IN BODY SHAPES OCCURRED DURING EARLY ANIMAL EVOLUTION

    Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.

    In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.

    The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution—the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.

    ...

    The UCSD team’s demonstration of how a mutation in the Ubx gene and changes in the corresponding Ubx protein can lead to such a major change in body design undercuts a primary argument creationists have used against the theory of evolution in debates and biology textbooks

    Full text: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

    I'm not a biologist, so it's not clear to me whether the press release hype is warranted. Still sounds interesting though.

    Fundy disclaimer: Of course, we all know that God's Word tells us it's all wrong and everyone knows this silly idea violates the Second Commandment, err, Law of Thermidonam...Thordimno....Thermiodynamicsism! And those fools STILL can't prove God doesn't exist!

    f.

  • freeman
    freeman

    I don’t know if it’s hype, as I seem to recall embryo research also pointed to macroevolution of our own and other species, but the argument always was that it was interpretive rather then definitive.

    If you look at the development of a human embryo, it APPEARS to go through various stages of change resembling reptiles and mammalians of various types (some with tails) etc. What the press release indicates TO ME is that there is yet ANOTHER and definitive line of evidence pointing to the same conclusion.

    I don’t know what your or anyone else’s religious leanings are, but it can’t be stated enough, EVELOUTION IS A FACT, deal with it! It has and is in fact at work today. How do you think antibiotic resistance germs arise? Where do you think insecticide resistant bugs and rats come from? THIS IS EVELOUTION working before your very eyes. Now does this fact invalidate God somehow? NO! Science is not the enemy of God; it only helps to explain the miracles of life.

    Freeman

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    I believe in evolution and God. I don't feel the Bible teaches against evolution.

    The interpitation of the Bible leaves room for evolution being Gods way of creating, and it is a truely AWESOME way to create.

    If macro-evo is provable then would that not give further evidence that perhaps the formula for Evolution was implanted right in the first micro second of the creation of the universe.(SPECULATION)

    So if the above is true wouldn't that be like,.. the awesome of awesomemist things.

    If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    ""Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only horizontal (or downward) changes—no increasing complexity.

    Because science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible, what is observed? We see variations in lizards, We also see birds, In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes.

    Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have had to make excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates. Scientific advancements have shown us that evolution is an even more ridiculous theory than it seemed in Darwin’s day. It is a theory without a mechanism. Not even appeals to long periods of time will allow simple organisms to “jump gaps” and become more complex and viable. Long periods of time make such leaps even less likely. All the breeding experiments, which many hoped would show macroevolution, have failed. The arguments used by Darwin and his followers are now discredited or, at best, in dispute, even among evolutionists. Finally, research in the last several decades has shown that the requirements for life are incredibly complex. Just the design that most people can see around them obviously implies a designer. Nevertheless, evolutionists still argue against this design by, oddly enough, using arguments which they spent a great deal of time designing. The theory of organic evolution is invalid. ""

    “We all fell down from the milky way, hanging around here for the judgement day, heaven only knows who’s in command.”- Jimmy Buffet

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Microevolution is a no brainer. If this future nature article indicates evidence for macroevolution, i look forward to seeing it.

    SS

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    We will see! Here is some food for thought from Dr. David A. Demick:

    Are mutations responsible for evolution from amoeba to man? Evolutionists have ascribed wondrous powers to mutations, the ability to create new body parts and new animals (amoeba to man evolution). In reality, mutations are extremely dangerous and are wreaking havoc on the human race and other living creatures.

    It is held by evolutionists that genetic mutations are an avenue of positive change in living organisms. For example, Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, seeks to establish a godless cosmos of chance in which the appearance of design in life has occurred by accident, by the incremental accumulation of positive changes in genes. His evidence relating to biochemical genetics, however, consists of theoretical models of little relevance to the real world.
    Thus, the question remains: What do we actually see in the world around us when we use scientific tools of measurement and observation? Do we see this "blind watchmaker" at work in any real-life examples, or do we see the opposite?

    The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the poverty of evolutionary theory to explain the facts in one well-researched area of biology--that is, the area of human genetics. It will show how the facts unearthed by this research show mutations to be, not a "blind watchmaker," but more truthfully analogous to a "blind gunman."

    The human mutation problem is bad and getting worse.

    Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations. This review will only scratch the surface of the many recent discoveries. Still, the examples cited will illustrate a compelling general principle which extends throughout this expanding field.

    What are mutations?

    Mutations are defined as random changes in cellular DNA. They change the genetic code for amino acid sequence in proteins, thus introducing biochemical errors of varying degrees of severity. Mutations have been classified as deletions (loss of DNA bases), insertions (gain of DNA bases), and missense or nonsense (substitution of a DNA base).

    If the mutations affect germ cells (female ova and male spermatozoa), they will be passed to all the cells of the offspring, and affect future generations. Such mutations are called "germline mutations," and are the cause of inherited diseases.

    Mutations also occur in other populations of body cells and will accumulate throughout a lifetime without being passed to the offspring. These are called "somatic mutations," and are important in the genesis of cancers and other degenerative disease processes.

    What are the real world results of mutations? (examples)

    To survey the mutation problem, it will be helpful to consider a few examples of how mutations work their biochemical havoc.

    Cholesterol-related mutations

    In the cardiovascular system, it has long been recognized that a high circulating cholesterol content in the blood is associated with degeneration and narrowing of large and medium-sized arteries. this process is called "atherosclerosis" and is a leading cause of heart disease. More recently, a genetic biochemical defect causing hereditary high blood levels of cholesterol has been discovered and is know as "familial hypercholesterolemia" (FH).

    This disorder has been traced to mutation of a gene coding a transmembrane receptor protein. The gene is on chromosome 19 and has about 45,000 base pairs with 18 exons. Its encoded receptor protein is anchored in the membranes of all body cells, and allows them to capture and take in "packages" of fats and cholesterol (called "low-density" lipoproteins," or LDL) that are manufactured in the liver. The receptor protein has 772 amino acids which form five functional domains.

    At least 350 different disease-producing mutations of the cholesterol receptor have been described. These may be classified according to the affected functional domain.

    Examples of mutations in the cholesterol-related LDL receptor gene. Shown are the 18 exons of the gene and various combinations of known mutations, classes 1-5. (This illustration is adapted from a more detailed diagram in J.L. Goldstein and M.S. Brown, "Familial Hypercholesterolemia," in C.R. Scriver , A.L. Beaudet, W.S. Sly, and D. Valle, editors, The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease, 6th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989), p. 1232.)

    In the first class of mutation, little or no receptor is synthesized at all. In the second, receptor protein is synthesized, but does not take its proper place in the cell membrane. Third, receptor protein is present in the membrane, but does not link with the LDL packages. Fourth, the receptor protein is unable to stay in the membrane. Fifth, receptor protein is present in the membrane and links with the LDL packages, but does not bring them into the cell. None of these are beneficial.

    All body cells need cholesterol for their membranes, so a certain amount is necessary and good. However, defects of this receptor protein result in high blood levels of cholesterol through a feedback loop. When the receptor protein is not working, the cells keep on sending the signals for more cholesterol packages, and the liver complies. In homozygotes, cholesterol levels are three to five times the proper level, while heterozygotes have about twice the proper level. This results in rapid atherosclerosis, sometimes resulting in fatal heart disease in childhood.

    Cystic fibrosis mutation

    A second example is a common genetic disease, cystic fibrosis (CF). This multisystem disease cripples children and leads to early death. It damages the lungs, digestive organs and, in the male, the vas deferens (spermatic duct). Its differing effects, from mild to severe, are in part due to different types of mutation affecting one key gene.

    This biochemical basis is the mutation of a gene coding for a transmembrane protein regulating chloride ion transport across the cell membrane. This gene has 250,000 base pairs and is called the CFTR gene. It codes for a transmembrane protein of 1,480 amino acids. Research on this gene showed a mutation, delta-F508, occurring in most clinical cases of CF. This mutation is a deletion of three nucleotides resulting in loss of phenylalanine residue at position 508 on the peptide chain.

    Normal DNA . . . T ATC ATC TTT GGT GTT
    Cystic Fibrosis DNA . . . T ATC AT- --T GGT GTT

    In addition to this fairly common mutation, over 200 other mutations of this gene have been described. Just a few of these are associated with the more severe forms of the disease, which lead to early death from lung infections. Other mutations or combinations of mutations lead to lesser disease states, like chronic pancreatitis or male infertility, but again, no beneficial results have been observed.

    Cancer

    As a broad example of disease produced by acquired somatic mutations, let's consider cancer. The link between carcinogenesis and genetic mutation has become much clearer.

    Carcinogens (agents causing cancer) also tend to be powerful mutagens (agents producing mutations). The discovery of "oncogenes" and "tumor suppressor genes" has shown how this relationship works. Basically, these genes are concerned with regulation of the cell cycle. The oncogenes drive the process of cell replication forward, while the tumor suppressor genes hold it back. Both are necessary for proper cell function and growth. But mutational damage to components of both systems may produce an uncontrolled growth of cells, which is cancer.

    This phenomenon may be compared to a car in which there is damage to the gas pedal, causing it be be stuck "on," while the brakes are damaged at the same time. These mutations are usually acquired over decades, so cancer is mainly a disease of old age. However, studies have shown that inherited germline mutations of key oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes can predispose persons to development of cancers in childhood.

    Examples of this include childhood cancers like retinoblastoma, as well as familial cases of more common cancers (e.g., breast or colon) that have been linked to specific mutant genes (e.g., the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes for familial breast cancer, and the APC gene for familial colonic polyps and cancers).

    Do mutations have any positive results?

    With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true.

    These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.

    Sickle cell anemia

    The mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of Evolution. The problems with this are obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. It can in no way be regarded as an improvement in our species, even though its preservation is enhanced in malaria-endemic parts of central Africa by natural selection.

    Cancerous cellular degeneration

    Even more strangely, the process of cancerous cellular degeneration has been vied as a Darwinian form of mutation! Again, this idea fails to hold up under scrutiny. Malignant cells can hardly be considered to be an improvement over their normal counterparts. They are "fitter" only in their replicative activity, but even this is just an exaggerated use of already existing cellular machinery. In many other important ways, they have degenerative features. They show no gain of information, but generally a loss or disorder of functions.

    In all this research, not one mutation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has been found.

    Conclusions

    What conclusions may be drawn from these few examples, and countless others like them? First, that the human mutation problem is bad and getting worse. Second, that it is unbalanced by any detectable positive mutations.

    To summarize, recent research has revealed literally tens of thousands of different mutations affecting the human genome, with a likelihood of many more yet to be characterized. These have been associated with thousands of diseases affecting every organ and tissue type in the body. The medical descriptions of many forms of inherited disease have a common theme: 80-90% of cases have affected individuals in the family tree, but the remaining cases are sporadic--the result of ever increasing numbers of new mutations. In all this research, not one mutation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has been found.

    Mutations behave like a "blind gunman," a destroyer who shoots he deadly "bullets" randomly into beautifully designed models of living molecular machinery.

    Instead of a "blind watchmaker," the mutations behave like a "blind gunman," a destroyer who shoots he deadly "bullets" randomly into beautifully designed models of living molecular machinery. Sometimes they kill. Thus, the "blind watchmaker" is an illusion. Worse than that, it is the intellectual and moral equivalent of an idol--an invention of the imagination, to which superhuman powers are falsely ascribed.

    Decay and degeneration

    This research affirms the reality of the past Biblical curse of decay and degeneration on the world of nature, as stated in both the Old and New Testaments.

    It also highlights the grim reality of the future hopelessness of the human race without the saving intervention of God and His Christ. Mutations continue to slowly harm us. Each generation has a slightly more disordered genetic constitution than the preceding one, and no amount of eugenics can reverse this process of decay. Gene therapy may mask the effects, but it will not reverse the underlying degenerative process.

    Mutations will eventually turn the human genetic code to gibberish.

    A slight but definite ongoing mutation rate, accompanied by a zero rate of positive genetic change, will eventually turn the human genetic code to gibberish. The problem is like a large book, written with perfect grammar in the beginning, but with random letter substitutions introduced at an ongoing rate. The book will still be readable for some time, but it will eventually lose all sense. Just as the universe is projected to reach a state of maximum entropy, so also the human race is condemned to a degenerative death, not just as individuals, but as a whole.

    In conclusion, the Christian hope stands as the only light in the darkness. Only the creative and regenerating work of Christ, as shown in His creation of all things (John 1:3), His miraculous healings, and in His resurrection from the dead, offers humankind true hope for the future.

    References

    Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (W.W. Norton and Co., 1987).

    Lubert Stryer, Biochemistry, 3rd edition (W.H. Freeman and Co., 1998).

    C. Koch and N. Hoiby, "The Pathogenesis of Cystic Fibrosis," The Lancet, Volume 341 (1993).

    Friedman Cohn, et al., "Idiopathic Chronic Pancreatitis and Mutations of the Cystic Fibrosis Gene," The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 339 (1998).

    Robert Weinberg, "Oncogenes and Tumor Suppressor Genes," CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Volume 44, Number 3 (1994).

    Felix Mitelman, "Chromosomes, Genes, and Cancer," CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Volume 44, No. 3 (1994).

    J. Defasche and J. Kastelein, "Molecular Epidemiology of Familial Hypercholesterolemia," The Lancet, Volume 352 (1998).

    Robbins, Cotran and Kumar, The Pathologic Basis of Disease, 5th edition (Philadephia: W.R. Saunders Co., 1994).
    Author: Dr. David A. Demick, M.D. (pathologist)

    “We all fell down from the milky way, hanging around here for the judgement day, heaven only knows who’s in command.”- Jimmy Buffet

  • rem
    rem

    ThiChi,

    As per usual from you, it’s another cut and paste 'rebuttal' filled with many assertions, yet no evidence. Evolution is seen and reproducible. The only distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is an arbitrary one made up by Creationists. The Theory of Evolution is one of the most successful and explanatory theories ever. The Theory has only gotten stronger in the last 150 years as more and more evidence comes to light.

    The very first sentence you pasted is hilarious:

    Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs
    No, I didn't 'notice' that. Where is the evidence for this absurd claim?

    Microevolution involves only horizontal (or downward) changes—no increasing complexity.
    Sounds pretty arbitrary to me. Can you back this claim?

    We also see birds, In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species.
    I guess a 3rd grader wrote this piece because this has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Every animal existing or that has existed is in transition. But every animal is just right for it's environment, so we don't notice animals as being intermediates - they just look right to us the way they are. Of course if we could live thousands or millions of years, (or take a quick look at the fossil record) we would see this transition in action.

    Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have had to make excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.
    No excuses, just facts - only a tiny fraction of animals will fossilize when they die. It's a very rare event. Also, there are many intermediates in the museums. And when you visit a museum, you are yet another intermediate inside a museum. New-fangled DNA evidence also gives us more of the picture that the fossil record simply cannot provide.

    It is a theory without a mechanism
    What the hell? Do you even read this stuff before pasting? Darwin's theory provided the mechanism for evolution (he didn't invent the concept of evolution). The mechanism is called Natural Selection, or as some call it, Survival of the Fittest. Of course, other factors are involved as well, such as genetic drift and sexual selection. A person would have to be extremely ignorant to make the claim that Evolution is a "theory without a mechanism"! LOL

    There is so much more ignorance in this cut and paste, but I'll just focus on one last thing:

    Finally, research in the last several decades has shown that the requirements for life are incredibly complex.
    Agreed. I don't believe any scientist argues that life is not complex, but complexity is not evidence against evolution or natural selection. Evolution is not a theory of Chance - it is a theory of gradual change through NON-random selection. The argument from design has been debunked for hundreds of years now – even before Paley made his infamous “watch in the sand” analogy and long before Darwin was even born. See David Hume’s Dialogues for a logical discussion about perceived design in the universe.

    I suggest you read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins for a good primer to the Theory of Evolution because you seem to be hopelessly uninformed, and your posts only serve to expose your ignorance.

    Also, it is common courtesy to name your source when you do a cut and paste.

    rem

    "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Thichi

    The flap over mutations may be a distraction. Take for example, the way the universe produces elements. Hydrogen gas clouds drift aimlessly, yet they form stars, as captured on film by hubble in the eagle nebula. Stars in turn, transform their hydrogen into heavier elements: helium, carbon, etc etc. When the star is near the end of its life, it has produced within itself, all the heavier elements needed to form planets. The star then goes nova, scattering these components. While i don't know exactly how these star fragments form into planets, the upward evolution of atoms within stars, shows that entropy is not isotropic. It does not require life for entropy to be reversed. There is a type of evolution/creation going on within stars. This proves that macro evolution of life forms is entirely within the range of possibilities. What drives it is a mystery. Some philosophies claim that the universe is organic, that 'god' is organic. Anyway, mutations may be a distraction or a mislabeling of what is really going on.

    SS

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    SS: Sounds resonable!!

    REM:

    Can't you do better? Your “Cut & Paste” smoke screen is just that, a smoke screen. Why re-type it? Get to the issues. You make the demand for proof, however, you make the most outlandish claims and "lables" without meeting your own standards of proof. You are very amusing. I give many references to the information for all to research on their own. You can dismiss it with name calling, however, you are not helping your case. But that may be all you can offer.

    There are many viewpoints........For the record, I disagree with your viewpoints on this issue, your views are not even in line with most pro-evolution debates on mutations. evolutionist Dr Pierre-Paul Grasse, Europe's most distinguished biologist, is not on your side of this issue. However, it just shows the many sides to what is being called a fact.........

    REM: """Every animal existing or that has existed is in transition""
    LOL!! Yea, right, like the whales? ho boy, we really got a winner here, folks!

    ARE MUTATIONS HELPFUL?
    Because natural selection can only choose from what is there, evolutionists must have faith that somehow mutations provide the new raw material for living things to evolve into other, more complicated life-forms having new structures and functions.
    But this is a blind faith, completely unsupported by the facts. The blueprint of living things earned by DNA is more complicated than the most sophisticated computer program. This blueprint is copied when living things reproduce, and mutations are nothing more or less than chance mistakes during copying.
    Can you imagine trying to improve a computer program, to give it new, more complex functions, by relying on copying mistakes?
    That's why the thousands of mutations of which we know in the human race are labelled by the diseases they cause. Listen to what the evolutionist Dr Pierre-Paul Grasse, Europe's most distinguished biologist, has to say. He was past president of the French Academy of Sciences, and editor of the prestigious 26-volume Traite de Zoologie'.
    'The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.' -- Pierre-Paul Grass'

    (University of Paris, past-president French Academie des sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press. New York, 1977, p. 103.

    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once - Buckaroo Bonsai

  • Moxy
    Moxy
    REM: "Every animal existing or that has existed is in transition"
    LOL!! Yea, right, like the whales? ho boy, we really got a winner here, folks!

    i dont even understand what the joke is here

    Can you imagine trying to improve a computer program, to give it new, more complex functions, by relying on copying mistakes?
    no need to imagine. its been done. people do it. its called Genetic Algorithms. you might argue the significance of it if you like but dont just pretend it doesnt exist, with a have of your hand.

    mox

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit