News1 min ago
Evolution or Iteration
Now that scientists are able to build life from the available DNA is the process any different from when life first evolved from the hands of a more intelligent being?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Evolution of a Mousetrap.
Starts with a block of wood that can fall upon the mouse when bumped into and kill it.
Later a prop is added on one side. This holds the block in a more precarious position where the prop can easily be dislodged making it more sensitive. Leads to increased use and nobody use the simple block any more.
Due to duplication of the manufacturing instructions (frequently seen in genes)another prop is added. It is found that the springier the prop the better it works. Due to a glitch in the specification the prop material is substituted for steel. This prop coils becoming more an more and more like a spring.
Interaction with the first prop further increases sensitivity. The duplication process repeats and the three steel wires interact to form a latch.
The killing function is taken over from the block by the wire and spring. The details of the latch change to retain bait. The shapes of the parts continue to change increasing the sensitivity of the mechanism.
Starts with a block of wood that can fall upon the mouse when bumped into and kill it.
Later a prop is added on one side. This holds the block in a more precarious position where the prop can easily be dislodged making it more sensitive. Leads to increased use and nobody use the simple block any more.
Due to duplication of the manufacturing instructions (frequently seen in genes)another prop is added. It is found that the springier the prop the better it works. Due to a glitch in the specification the prop material is substituted for steel. This prop coils becoming more an more and more like a spring.
Interaction with the first prop further increases sensitivity. The duplication process repeats and the three steel wires interact to form a latch.
The killing function is taken over from the block by the wire and spring. The details of the latch change to retain bait. The shapes of the parts continue to change increasing the sensitivity of the mechanism.
Those "respected scientists" are intitled to their hypothesis. However their assertions are baseless.
Understand that in science, evidence is everything. Status might make someone listen but if the propositions are not backed by evidence the status amounst to nothing. Moreover the staus of any scientist who continues to promote hypotheses that are contrary to evidence is doomed.
Religion is based on personality cults. Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Jimmy Jones, David Koresh. Within their cults everything they say is taken as gospel but their status doesn't make them right.
Einstein and many of his colleagues adopted strong positions on particular parts of their science and were shown to be wrong. Doesn't decrease from their achievments but nor does their status give any extra weight to their incorrect hypotheses.
Understand that in science, evidence is everything. Status might make someone listen but if the propositions are not backed by evidence the status amounst to nothing. Moreover the staus of any scientist who continues to promote hypotheses that are contrary to evidence is doomed.
Religion is based on personality cults. Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Jimmy Jones, David Koresh. Within their cults everything they say is taken as gospel but their status doesn't make them right.
Einstein and many of his colleagues adopted strong positions on particular parts of their science and were shown to be wrong. Doesn't decrease from their achievments but nor does their status give any extra weight to their incorrect hypotheses.
Another, among many, well reasoned argument put forth by beso, in this case refuting 'irreducible complexity'.
With regards to evolving forms, it might also be worth noting that a mousetrap need not start as a primitive form of mousetrap but might have served a totally unrelated function in earlier adaptations only to serve as a mousetrap with the addition of further modifications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU
Peace of Mind . . . anyone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
With regards to evolving forms, it might also be worth noting that a mousetrap need not start as a primitive form of mousetrap but might have served a totally unrelated function in earlier adaptations only to serve as a mousetrap with the addition of further modifications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU
Peace of Mind . . . anyone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
Lets not confuse fact with fiction. Evolution is only capable of a small step change as outlined by Darwin. Little did he know at the time but the genes required to make this transition were already in place and were not switched on.
Therefore unlike the mousetrap where components were removed the genetic material always existed but hidden.
So the flagella bacterium did not suddenly acquire extra genes to make it function fully, they were always there.
The only part evolution may have played was to switch on extra genes.
Its the same with humans and chimps who possess 99.9% gene similarity but different genes are switch on.
Therefore unlike the mousetrap where components were removed the genetic material always existed but hidden.
So the flagella bacterium did not suddenly acquire extra genes to make it function fully, they were always there.
The only part evolution may have played was to switch on extra genes.
Its the same with humans and chimps who possess 99.9% gene similarity but different genes are switch on.
Thanks, mib.
rov1200, the mention of a mousetrap and molecules makes me think that the derivation here is Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box.
I can easily show why the mousetrap analogy is flawed and, from there, that the whole idea of irreducible complexity is flawed as well. I haven't got time tonight, so I'll do it tomorrow. Cheers.
rov1200, the mention of a mousetrap and molecules makes me think that the derivation here is Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box.
I can easily show why the mousetrap analogy is flawed and, from there, that the whole idea of irreducible complexity is flawed as well. I haven't got time tonight, so I'll do it tomorrow. Cheers.
Rov you make a very interesting argument and coming from this angle seems to hint at the truth. When we talk about evolution we have always looked at it from the material side and how the appearance or function has changed.
But as you have pointed out its not because the object has changed by acquiring some outside addition but its because of the genetic material being read and processed within that object which has always been there.
This makes sense because you cannot produce something from nothing.
Thefore that bacteria had been designed with all its genes intact and could not have evolved as the pundits suggest,
But as you have pointed out its not because the object has changed by acquiring some outside addition but its because of the genetic material being read and processed within that object which has always been there.
This makes sense because you cannot produce something from nothing.
Thefore that bacteria had been designed with all its genes intact and could not have evolved as the pundits suggest,
Sorry, beso, I hadn't seen your mousetrap post befoer I posted mine. Never mind, all grist to the mill.
rov1200, you really need to learn a lot more about evolution so that you can tell when you are being misled, as you are being at the moment. Everything you have mentioned so far is old hat and has been dealt with years ago.
For a start read Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable to see how very small steps in evolution can, over time, result in huge changes including new species.
rov1200, you really need to learn a lot more about evolution so that you can tell when you are being misled, as you are being at the moment. Everything you have mentioned so far is old hat and has been dealt with years ago.
For a start read Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable to see how very small steps in evolution can, over time, result in huge changes including new species.
I'd like to point out that Ventner is **not** doing what brought about life naturally
He is recomining material that already has a biological source.
He is not creating DNA in a test tube from basic chemicals.
Besides this life on Earth almost certainly did not start with DNA - single strand RNA life was almost certainly first and possibly thioester based chemistry before that.
However it is highly unlikely that detailed evidence of that has survived so it is somewaht improbable that we will ever know for certain
He is recomining material that already has a biological source.
He is not creating DNA in a test tube from basic chemicals.
Besides this life on Earth almost certainly did not start with DNA - single strand RNA life was almost certainly first and possibly thioester based chemistry before that.
However it is highly unlikely that detailed evidence of that has survived so it is somewaht improbable that we will ever know for certain
Jake you are right. Ventner even admitted in the video he has not started from the base of the tree but has used evolution to get to his starting point. Because of the hysteria about creating life he was advised to point out where he stood.
I'd advise you though to watch the video on the flagella bacterium above (only 10 mintes playing time) which is presented by top scientists in the field. They believe it could not be formed by evolution alone because it needs all the parts to function and evolution would not progress if it were going up a blind alley. They make no claim how it was achieved which is another story.
I'd advise you though to watch the video on the flagella bacterium above (only 10 mintes playing time) which is presented by top scientists in the field. They believe it could not be formed by evolution alone because it needs all the parts to function and evolution would not progress if it were going up a blind alley. They make no claim how it was achieved which is another story.
Oh dear, rov1200, I now realise that you are way, way out-of-date.
I found the video at last and wondered when on earth it was made. As I suspected from your earlier mention of mousetraps and irreducible complexity, it was dear old Michael Behe explaining the theory he put forward in his book Darwin's Black Box which I bought and read when it was first published -- fourteen years ago!
(So much for your idea that I have no knowledge of the genetics you refer to. Your apology is accepted.)
There have been so many reviews of that book over the years, many of them debunking his ideas quite comprehensively, that there's no need for me to go into it all here. Just Google Darwin's Black Box and read some of them. Also Google Michael Behe. You might come across the court case in which he tried to defend the idea of teaching ID in science classes. He was firmly put down.
As I suggested earlier you should learn more about evolution - and get a little more up-to-date. It's pointless to flog dead horses.
I found the video at last and wondered when on earth it was made. As I suspected from your earlier mention of mousetraps and irreducible complexity, it was dear old Michael Behe explaining the theory he put forward in his book Darwin's Black Box which I bought and read when it was first published -- fourteen years ago!
(So much for your idea that I have no knowledge of the genetics you refer to. Your apology is accepted.)
There have been so many reviews of that book over the years, many of them debunking his ideas quite comprehensively, that there's no need for me to go into it all here. Just Google Darwin's Black Box and read some of them. Also Google Michael Behe. You might come across the court case in which he tried to defend the idea of teaching ID in science classes. He was firmly put down.
As I suggested earlier you should learn more about evolution - and get a little more up-to-date. It's pointless to flog dead horses.
I was not aware of a court case but it shows how using links from the net can soon be outdated, I was willing to go along with the views outlined but they were not specifically my own views. These are outlined above but here is a section:
///Therefore unlike the mousetrap where components were removed I believe the genetic material always existed but hidden.
So the flagella bacterium did not suddenly acquire extra genes to make it function fully, they were always there.
The only part evolution may have played was to switch on extra genes.
Its the same with humans and chimps who possess 99.9% gene similarity but different genes are switch on///
So now to disprove my theory you have to prove that the total coding for the flagella bacterium was not in place.
.
///Therefore unlike the mousetrap where components were removed I believe the genetic material always existed but hidden.
So the flagella bacterium did not suddenly acquire extra genes to make it function fully, they were always there.
The only part evolution may have played was to switch on extra genes.
Its the same with humans and chimps who possess 99.9% gene similarity but different genes are switch on///
So now to disprove my theory you have to prove that the total coding for the flagella bacterium was not in place.
.
Whoever it was who 'believed that the genetic material was always there' believed wrongly.
As you must surely know, evolution occurs because genetic codes randomly change - thus producing new genetic information. This change is usually detrimental, as would be expected, and natural selection kills that strain off. Sometimes it is neutral, not affecting the viability of the organism, so the new genes get carried along as passengers.
Sometimes that change is beneficial to the organism and so, by natural selection, the change is passed on to future generations. Sometimes a whole chain of such mutations can cause the new strain to be so dissimilar from the original 'parent' that they can no longer interbreed, so the strain is then a new species.
By that time there wil be lots of genes in the new species which were not contained in the original 'parent'. So the writer's 'belief ' is groundless.
(It was Behe's theories about the bacterial flagellum that got him into such a muddle at the trial.)
As you must surely know, evolution occurs because genetic codes randomly change - thus producing new genetic information. This change is usually detrimental, as would be expected, and natural selection kills that strain off. Sometimes it is neutral, not affecting the viability of the organism, so the new genes get carried along as passengers.
Sometimes that change is beneficial to the organism and so, by natural selection, the change is passed on to future generations. Sometimes a whole chain of such mutations can cause the new strain to be so dissimilar from the original 'parent' that they can no longer interbreed, so the strain is then a new species.
By that time there wil be lots of genes in the new species which were not contained in the original 'parent'. So the writer's 'belief ' is groundless.
(It was Behe's theories about the bacterial flagellum that got him into such a muddle at the trial.)
Latest Posts
Local Election News So Far ....
News1 min ago
Body & Soul2 mins ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.