Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

real life wrote:

But the assumption seems to be that each portion DOES have a function.

I don't think most of the genome is considered to have an active function. Most of it is considered 'junk' DNA.

Personally, I think that all that 'junk' provides the raw material (function) of potential variation. Mixing and matching of DNA through reproduction might activate or de-activate sections of the DNA.

real life wrote:

(If each portion doesn't confer a 'survival benefit' i.e. have a positive function, then evolutionists will have to explain why these portions are consistently 'selected for'.)

I don't think the 'junk' portions are selected for. They simply flow through the reproductive copying process relatively intact. Changes that crop up (even mutations) simply sit there and do nothing unless some future combination happens to activate them.

The next two statements only apply if your first two assumptions are correct, and I'm not sure they are.

real life wrote:

If the genome does have a function, then the interruption of that function by a change would HAVE TO be negative , UNLESS it was a positive change.

The removal of usefulness without replacement by some other benefit would have to be a net loss, yes?

0 Replies

Another alternative to the one stated in the first paragraph of the previous post is that some junk comes with the useful stuff during evolution, and that the junk is passed down the line as well as the good stuff.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I don't think the 'junk' portions are selected for. They simply flow through the reproductive copying process relatively intact. Changes that crop up (even mutations) simply sit there and do nothing unless some future combination happens to activate them.

If evolution is correct, then there was a time that these 'junk' sections did not exist.

So, (if and only if evolution is correct) obviously they WERE 'selected for' and continue to be.

Why?

Again, changes that 'crop up' and 'flow thru' ARE being selected for, according to the theory.

Why, if no 'survival benefit' is accrued?

Are we to learn from this that 'natural selection causes beneficial changes to remain while eliminating harmful ones, except when it doesn't '[/u][/i] ?

The idea that evolution would result in such large sections of 'junk' DNA , i.e. functionless, benefitless 'genetic gibberish', is a large indication of how arbitrarily natural selection is applied by it's proponents, and why it's basically worthless as a scientific concept.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If evolution is correct, then there was a time that these 'junk' sections did not exist.

So, (if and only if evolution is correct) obviously they WERE 'selected for' and continue to be.

At the time they were selected for, they were not 'junk' DNA, they were active and open to selective pressure.

Over time, new gene combinations arose which superseded the originals and the original became junk and just flowed along through the reproductive process.

What we are left with are vast swaths of obsolete genes which used to have a function, but which are no longer necessary due to new genes.

0 Replies

That something by present understanding may appear to not have a known function by no means entails that thing has no function, it means only that no function yet has been determined. Current research seems very highly likely headed toward consigning the whole "Junk DNA" notion to the junkpile

0 Replies

Random mutation by sunlight radiation is the mechanism of The Theory of Evolution. Natural selection is just the end product. Something has to exist before it can be selected.

0 Replies

I agree, timber.

As I stated earlier, it is logical to conclude that each part of the genome has a function, although the overwhelming majority of it (90% + of the human genome's function) is unknown to us.

So then, the overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful , not simply 'neutral' ; because they degrade a usable and useful part of the genetic information.

The 'junk' hypothesis was supposed to do away with this obvious conclusion, but is an unsustainable idea in and of itself, since it contradicts evolutionary thinking regarding natural selection.

However, going back to the old idea of most mutations being harmful is a scary scenario for evolution as well, since the mathematical arguments against evolution become profoundly difficult to overcome.

Ah, what to do?

Either camp (the Junkists and the Non-Junkists) is loathe to dispense with the idea of natural selection; but will, I predict, continue to apply it arbitrarily when it suits and ignore it when it does not.

0 Replies

chiso wrote:

Random mutation by sunlight radiation is the mechanism of The Theory of Evolution. Natural selection is just the end product. Something has to exist before it can be selected.

So how do organisms with little or no contact with sunlight manage to 'evolve'?

Can the application of random energy really produce useful genetic information?

If so, maybe we should consider irradiating the human race to enhance our evolution. Whaddaya think?

0 Replies

chiso, other factors beside sunlight - beside radiation of any sort - can and do effect change at the genetic level.

rl, your specious objection ignores the simple fact that however rare they might be, beneficial mutations by nature will propogate, will prosper, will ever increasingly express - be "selected for" and passed on, while mutations of negative effect - your "harmful mutations" - by nature enjoy no such success - they simply are not "selected for", but rather they are selected against; "harmful mutations" factor themselves out while benficial mutations factor themselves in. Its not about individuals, its about populations.

0 Replies

Both of my older brothers have Fragile X Syndrome. The following article might be of help in understanding genetic mutation.

The second article explores the link between genetics and homosexuality. I hope this will be read with objectivity, not as a way to slant it to one's own political bias. It is the result of scientific study without any comment on social mores concerning homosexuality. I find it of particular interest becaue one of my brothers is gay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragile_X_syndrome

The fragile X syndrome is a genetic disorder caused by mutation of the FMR1 gene on the X chromosome. Mutation at that site is found in 1 out of about every 1250 males and 1 out of about every 2500 females.

Normally, the FMR1 gene contains between 6 and 55 repeats of the CGG codon (trinucleotide repeats). In people with the fragile X syndrome, the FMR1 allele has over 230 repeats of this codon.

Expansion of the CGG repeating codon to such a degree results in a methylation of that portion of the DNA, effectively silencing the expression of the FMR1 protein.

This methylation of the FMR1 locus in chromosome band Xq27.3 is believed to result in constriction of the X chromosome which appears 'fragile' under the microscope at that point, a phenomenon that gave the syndrome its name.

Mutation of the FMR1 gene leads to the transcriptional silencing of the fragile X-mental retardation protein, FMRP. In normal individuals, FMRP binds and facilitates the translation of a number of essential neuronal RNAs. In fragile X patients, however, these RNAs are not translated into proteins. The various sequelae of fragile X syndrome.
===============================================
Here is a link to another article about the likelyhood of a genetic link to homosexuality
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dh93ge.html

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

chiso, other factors beside sunlight - beside radiation of any sort - can and do effect change at the genetic level.

rl, your specious objection ignores the simple fact that however rare they might be, beneficial mutations by nature will propogate, will prosper, will ever increasingly express - be "selected for" and passed on, while mutations of negative effect - your "harmful mutations" - by nature enjoy no such success - they simply are not "selected for", but rather they are selected against; "harmful mutations" factor themselves out while benficial mutations factor themselves in. Its not about individuals, its about populations.

Who is making these "selections" Timber? :wink:

0 Replies

real life wrote:

chiso wrote:
Random mutation by sunlight radiation is the mechanism of The Theory of Evolution. Natural selection is just the end product. Something has to exist before it can be selected.

So how do organisms with little or no contact with sunlight manage to 'evolve'?

Can the application of random energy really produce useful genetic information?

If so, maybe we should consider irradiating the human race to enhance our evolution. Whaddaya think?

-It's not my theory.
Neither did I say I support the theory.
However, the sun provides energy to the earth as a whole, regardless of whether it shines directly upon an individual organism.

-Can random mutations produce useful genetic information ... thereupon hinges the entire credibility of the current theory.

0 Replies

The energy to avoid entropy is provided by the sun.
Random mutation is the mechanism of The Theory of Evolution.

Here's a question for someone really smart:

In the very first flying bird on earth which was Naturally Selected first?

A) Wings
B) Feathers
C) Hollow Bones
D) Avian Lungs

0 Replies

Mutation happens randomly. It doesn't matter what came first. Most mutations are unfortunate, but some are beneficial enough that they become desirable traits in reproduction.

It is random. There is no time line, first or last, just time--eons of time, incomprehensible stretches of time.

0 Replies

chiso wrote:

The energy to avoid entropy is provided by the sun.
Random mutation is the mechanism of The Theory of Evolution.

It's one mechanism, it's not the mechanism.

chiso wrote:

In the very first flying bird on earth which was Naturally Selected first?

A) Wings
B) Feathers
C) Hollow Bones
D) Avian Lungs

How do you they weren't all selected for at the same time?
How do you know there weren't more things being selected for as well?
What makes you think that these things are separate items in at a genetic level (wings and feathers may have derived from the same genetic segments)?

Are you asking about a bird that could fly already, or an animal which would eventually be able to fly?

Your question seems awkward in its assumptions, and inadequate given that evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Who is making these "selections" Timber? :wink:

Simple answer: Nobody. Success makes the "decision" - what works works; it survives and prospers, what doesn't, doesn't. If the genetic toolkit comes up with a successful adaptive response to a particular environmental influence, a response which enhances survival and procreation, that response typically eventually will becomes characteristic of the population within which it originated, given opportunity to do so (for intance, barring short-term ebroadspread environmental negative impact due to something on the order a a major meteor impact).

If there is no benefit, or if there is negative impact, the adaptation becomes either recessive or edits itself out, respectively. That's why some species have managed to survive intact for eons, others have adapted, differentiated, and evolved into successful successor species, and others have gone extinct. And it ain't "random" by any stretch, its chaotic - huge difference. "Random" is a myth, a fairytale, a human construct, "Chaos" is a "Law" of nature ... fractals, fourier transforms, and all that.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

chiso wrote:
The energy to avoid entropy is provided by the sun.
Random mutation is the mechanism of The Theory of Evolution.

It's one mechanism, it's not the mechanism.

chiso wrote:
In the very first flying bird on earth which was Naturally Selected first?

A) Wings
B) Feathers
C) Hollow Bones
D) Avian Lungs

How do you they weren't all selected for at the same time?
How do you know there weren't more things being selected for as well?
What makes you think that these things are separate items in at a genetic level (wings and feathers may have derived from the same genetic segments)?

Are you asking about a bird that could fly already, or an animal which would eventually be able to fly?

Your question seems awkward in its assumptions, and inadequate given that evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

If a bird developed one feature required for flight without the others, what good would it do and why would this feature be 'selected for' since it gives no 'survival advantage'?

If birds developed from reptiles, for instance, how would losing one's well developed and operative forelimbs to receive inoperative wings be deemed a 'survival advantage'? It would seem to be a great DISadvantage.

The same is true with many evolutionary tales. The famous jawbone-to-ear story is one of my favorites.

0 Replies

chiso wrote:

The energy to avoid entropy is provided by the sun.

Sunlight must be harnessed and usefully employed to overcome entropy. In living organisms, the DNA has the needed information to enable sunlight to be helpful to the organism.

Energy and information together enable living organisms to overcome entropy. One without the other is not sufficient.

0 Replies

Quote:

If a bird developed one feature required for flight without the others, what good would it do and why would this feature be 'selected for' since it gives no 'survival advantage'?

And you know this how?

Fossil birds and reptiles have features in common and archeopteryx retains about 21 features linking it to reptiles. It even had finger tips on its wings.
Specific features had some evolutionary favorable, or at least neutral sttribute so the animal just piled em up through time.
The fossil record of many insects show relict or advanced features that had no possible use in the "end game" , such as flight. Yet, the fossil records of early forms clearly show stubby wings that could not possibly be flight wings. Why is that?
.

0 Replies

Quote:

If a bird developed one feature required for flight without the others, what good would it do and why would this feature be 'selected for' since it gives no 'survival advantage'?

And you know this how?

Fossil birds and reptiles have features in common and archeopteryx retains about 21 features linking it to reptiles. It even had finger tips on its wings.
Specific features had some evolutionary favorable, or at least neutral sttribute so the animal just piled em up through time.
The fossil record of many insects show relict or advanced features that had no possible use in the "end game" , such as flight. Yet, the fossil records of early forms clearly show stubby wings that could not possibly be flight wings. Why is that?
.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know