A few questions about evolution

[Argamemnon]

I have a few questions for the 'scientists' among us.

1) Can a mutation add new information to DNA?

2) Isn't a single protein far too complex ever to come into being spontaneously?

3) Would a protein, DNA, RNA or any other minute component of the cell serve any purpose in the absence of the cell as a whole?

[marwen]

I have another question I want to add to the list :
evolution assume that humans are derived from monkeys, or have the same monkey-like ancestor in common with monkeys.
You know, monkey males AND females have both a lot of hair on their body (males and females have the same quantity of hair on their skin). Now why human males have more hair than human females : are men more primitive than women ? that's absurd. What conditions made women evolve in a different way than men ?

[Amoeba]

1) Yes. Certain mutations lead to an addition of nucleotides in the DNA sequence.

2) Some scientists say yes, some scientists say no. Probably because we don't know what Earth's conditions were like, and we don't know what conditions would be needed (if any at all) for proteins to form from what necessary materials, or rather how the building blocks of proteins - amino acids - are formed without a living system to put them together.

3) Theoretically it could serve the purpose to replicate itself IF it were possible to do so. Again, however, it's not known if the conditions could exist outside a laboratory where physical genetic material could replicate faster than it was destroyed. And, again, you'll probably find a lot of people disagreeing on it. I think we as humans just don't know this information.

Theoretically if we assume that humans were derived from an ape-like ancestor and human males evolved to be more hairy than females, rather than just being created spontaneously by God to be that way, I would imagine the reasons for it would be very much similar to the reasons why we would be created to be that way - so males and females are better differentiated for attraction and identification purposes, social purposes, and so they can endure harsher conditions (such as on the hunt or at war, away from home, possibly in the cold). Possibly also because human females tend to maintain a slightly higher body temperature than males (I mean slightly though).

The reason why it would not make human males more primitive is because imagine it's a brother and sister, they're on the exact same generation, but the brother has more facial and body hair. To be more primitive means to be in a sense archaic and of an old design, but from a biology standpoint it means to be less evolved. And to be less evolved means you have undergone less genetic change or to have passed through fewer generations. But a brother and a sister will have undergone virtually the same genetic change and be of the same generation so no one can be more evolved than the other. Bear in mind that male and female twins share the exact same genetic information except for a very small portion, the Y chromosome, which is unique to males. Also they're the same species, and if you imagined evolution was real then it doesn't work if you talk about individuals, but only species as a whole.

[Amoeba]

Sorry, I meant to say some twins, some twins don't share exact genetic information but it is very close because they are the same species.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[جوري]

[QUOTE=Argamemnon;1368124]

1) Can a mutation add new information to DNA?

Mutations come in different varieties:
you can read in detail here:

Mutations

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair.
Link to discussion of DNA repair.
Single-base substitutions

A single base, say an A, becomes replaced by another. Single base substitutions are also called point mutations. (If one purine [A or G] or pyrimidine [C or T] is replaced by the other, the substitution is called a transition. If a purine is replaced by a pyrimidine or vice-versa, the substitution is called a transversion.)
Missense mutations

With a missense mutation, the new nucleotide alters the codon so as to produce an altered amino acid in the protein product.

EXAMPLE: sickle-cell disease The replacement of A by T at the 17th nucleotide of the gene for the beta chain of hemoglobin changes the codon GAG (for glutamic acid) to GTG (which encodes valine). Thus the 6th amino acid in the chain becomes valine instead of glutamic acid.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Patient A with cystic fibrosis (scroll down).
Nonsense mutations

With a nonsense mutation, the new nucleotide changes a codon that specified an amino acid to one of the STOP codons (TAA, TAG, or TGA). Therefore, translation of the messenger RNA transcribed from this mutant gene will stop prematurely. The earlier in the gene that this occurs, the more truncated the protein product and the more likely that it will be unable to function.
EXAMPLE: Patient B

Here is a sampling of the more than 1000 different mutations that have been found in patients with cystic fibrosis. Each of these mutations occurs in a huge gene that encodes a protein (of 1480 amino acids) called the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR). The protein is responsible for transporting chloride ions through the plasma membrane. The gene encompasses over 6000 nucleotides spread over 27 exons on chromosome 7. The numbers in the mutation column represent the number of the nucleotides affected. Defects in the protein cause the various symptoms of the disease. Unlike sickle-cell disease, then, no single mutation is responsible for all cases of cystic fibrosis. People with cystic fibrosis inherit two mutant genes, but the mutations need not be the same.
In one patient with cystic fibrosis (Patient B), the substitution of a T for a C at nucleotide 1609 converted a glutamine codon (CAG) to a STOP codon (TAG). The protein produced by this patient had only the first 493 amino acids of the normal chain of 1480 and could not function.
Silent mutations

Most amino acids are encoded by several different codons. For example, if the third base in the TCT codon for serine is changed to any one of the other three bases, serine will still be encoded. Such mutations are said to be silent because they cause no change in their product and cannot be detected without sequencing the gene (or its mRNA).
Splice-site mutations

The removal of intron sequences, as pre-mRNA is being processed to form mRNA, must be done with great precision. Nucleotide signals at the splice sites guide the enzymatic machinery. If a mutation alters one of these signals, then the intron is not removed and remains as part of the final RNA molecule. The translation of its sequence alters the sequence of the protein product.
Link to discussion of RNA processing. Insertions and Deletions (Indels)

Extra base pairs may be added (insertions) or removed (deletions) from the DNA of a gene. The number can range from one to thousands. Collectively, these mutations are called indels.

Indels involving one or two base pairs (or multiples thereof) can have devastating consequences to the gene because translation of the gene is "frameshifted". This figure shows how by shifting the reading frame one nucleotide to the right, the same sequence of nucleotides encodes a different sequence of amino acids. The mRNA is translated in new groups of three nucleotides and the protein specified by these new codons will be worthless. Scroll up to see two other examples (Patients C and D).
Frameshifts often create new STOP codons and thus generate nonsense mutations. Perhaps that is just as well as the protein would probably be too garbled anyway to be useful to the cell.
Indels of three nucleotides or multiples of three may be less serious because they preserve the reading frame (see Patient E above).
However, a number of inherited human disorders are caused by the insertion of many copies of the same triplet of nucleotides. Huntington's disease and the fragile X syndrome are examples of such trinucleotide repeat diseases.
Fragile X Syndrome

Several disorders in humans are caused by the inheritance of genes that have undergone insertions of a string of 3 or 4 nucleotides repeated over and over. A locus on the human X chromosome contains such a stretch of nucleotides in which the triplet CGG is repeated (CGGCGGCGGCGG, etc.). The number of CGGs may be as few as 5 or as many as 50 without causing a harmful phenotype (these repeated nucleotides are in a noncoding region of the gene). Even 100 repeats usually cause no harm. However, these longer repeats have a tendency to grow longer still from one generation to the next (to as many as 4000 repeats).

This causes a constriction in the X chromosome, which makes it quite fragile. Males who inherit such a chromosome (only from their mothers, of course) show a number of harmful phenotypic effects including mental retardation. Females who inherit a fragile X (also from their mothers; males with the syndrome seldom become fathers) are only mildly affected.
This image shows the pattern of inheritance of the fragile X syndrome in one family. The number of times that the trinucleotide CGG is repeated is given under the symbols. The gene is on the X chromosome, so women (circles) have two copies of it; men (squares) have only one. People with a gene containing 80–90 repeats are normal (light red), but this gene is unstable, and the number of repeats can increase into the hundreds in their offspring. Males who inherit such an enlarged gene suffer from the syndrome (solid red squares). (Data from C. T. Caskey, et al.).
Polyglutamine Diseases

In these disorders, the repeated trinucleotide is CAG, which adds a string of glutamines (Gln) to the encoded protein. These have beeen implicated in a number of central nervous system disorders including

• Huntington's disease (where the protein called huntingtin carries the extra glutamines). The abnormal protein increases the level of the p53 protein in brain cells causing their death by apoptosis.
• some cases of Parkinson's disease where the extra glutamines are in the protein ataxin-2;
• some case of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) — again where ataxin-2 is the culprit. (ALS is often called "Lou Gehrig's disease" after the baseball player who died from it.)

Muscular Dystrophy

Some forms of muscular dystrophy that appear in adults are caused by tri- or tetranucleotide, e.g. (CTG)n and (CCTG)n, repeats where n may run into the thousands. The huge RNA transcripts that result interfere with the alternative splicing of other transcripts in the nucleus.
Duplications

Duplications are a doubling of a section of the genome. During meiosis, crossing over between sister chromatids that are out of alignment can produce one chromatid with an duplicated gene and the other (not shown) having two genes with deletions. In the case shown here, unequal crossing over created a second copy of a gene needed for the synthesis of the steroid hormone aldosterone.

However, this new gene carries inappropriate promoters at its 5' end (acquired from the 11-beta hydroxylase gene) that cause it to be expressed more strongly than the normal gene. The mutant gene is dominant: all members of one family (through four generations) who inherited at least one chromosome carrying this duplication suffered from high blood pressure and were prone to early death from stroke.
Gene duplication has also been implicated in several human neurological disorders.
Gene duplication has occurred repeatedly during the evolution of eukaryotes. Genome analysis reveals many genes with similar sequences in a single organism. Presumably these paralogous genes have arisen by repeated duplication of an ancestral gene.
Such gene duplication can be beneficial.

• Over time, the duplicates can acquire different functions.
  
  • The proteins they encode can take on different functions; for example, if the original gene product carried out two different functions (see "pleiotropy"), each duplicated gene can now specialize at one function and do a better job at it than the parental gene.
  • But even if they do not, changes in the regulatory sequences of the genes (promoters and enhancers) may cause the same protein to be expressed at different times and/or in different tissues.
  
  Either situation can provide the basis for adaptive evolution.
• But even while two paralogous genes are still similar in sequence and function, their existence provides redundancy ("belt and suspenders"). This may be a major reason why knocking out genes in yeast, "knockout mice", etc. so often has such a mild effect on the phenotype. The function of the knocked out gene can be taken over by a paralog.
• After gene duplication, random loss — or inactivation — of one of these genes at a later time in
  
  • one group of descendants
  • different from the loss in another group
  
  could provide a barrier (a "post-zygotic isolating mechanism") to the two groups interbreeding. Such a barrier could cause speciation: the evolution of two different species from a single ancestral species.

Translocations

Translocations are the transfer of a piece of one chromosome to a nonhomologous chromosome. Translocations are often reciprocal; that is, the two nonhomologues swap segments.

Translocations can alter the phenotype is several ways:

• the break may occur within a gene destroying its function
• translocated genes may come under the influence of different promoters and enhancers so that their expression is altered. The translocations in Burkitt's lymphoma are an example.
• the breakpoint may occur within a gene creating a hybrid gene. This may be transcribed and translated into a protein with an N-terminal of one normal cell protein coupled to the C-terminal of another. The Philadelphia chromosome found so often in the leukemic cells of patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) is the result of a translocation which produces a compound gene (bcr-abl).

Frequency of Mutations

Mutations are rare events.
This is surprising. Humans inherit 3 x 109 base pairs of DNA from each parent. Just considering single-base substitutions, this means that each cell has 6 billion (6 x 109) different base pairs that can be the target of a substitution.
Single-base substitutions are most apt to occur when DNA is being copied; for eukaryotes that means during S phase of the cell cycle.
No process is 100% accurate. Even the most highly skilled typist will introduce errors when copying a manuscript. So it is with DNA replication. Like a conscientious typist, the cell does proofread the accuracy of its copy. But, even so, errors slip through.
It has been estimated that in humans and other mammals, uncorrected errors (= mutations) occur at the rate of about 1 in every 50 million (5 x 107) nucleotides added to the chain. (Not bad — I wish that I could type so accurately.) But with 6 x 109 base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations.
Should we be worried? Probably not.
Most (as much as 97%) of our DNA does not encode anything. This includes:

• repetitive DNA like Alu elements and other so-called "junk" DNA But not all our "junk" DNA is junk. As more vertebrate genomes are sequenced, it turns out that they contain stretches of DNA that do not encode proteins or RNA but have none-the-less been remarkably conserved during vertebrate evolution. Some of these regions have accumulated fewer mutations than protein-encoding genes have. This suggests that these sequences are extremely important to the welfare of the organism, but why is as yet unknown.
• noncoding DNA in introns and flanking structural genes. (However, mutations here can have an effect by altering the expression of the gene or interfering with correct splicing of the gene's mRNA.)
• Even in coding regions, the existence of synonymous codons may result in the altered (mutated) gene still encoding the same amino acid in the protein.

How can we measure the frequency at which phenotype-altering mutations occur? In humans, it is not easy.

• First we must be sure that the mutation is newly-arisen. (Some populations have high frequencies of a particular mutation, not because the gene is especially susceptible, but because it has been passed down through the generations from a early "founder". [Link to an example]).
• Recessive mutations (most of them are) will not be seen except on the rare occasions that both parents contribute a mutation at the same locus to their child.
• This leaves us with estimating mutation frequencies for genes that are inherited as
  
  • autosomal dominants
  • X-linked recessives; that is, recessives on the X chromosome which will be expressed in males because they inherit only one X chromosome.

Some Examples (expressed as the frequency of mutations occurring at that locus in the gametes)

• Autosomal dominants
  
  • Retinoblastoma
    in the RB gene [Link]: about 8 per million (8 x 10-6)
  • Osteogenesis imperfecta
    in one or the other of the two genes that encode Type I collagen [Link]: about 1 per 100,000 (10-5)
  • Inherited tendency to polyps (and later cancer) in the colon.
    in a tumor suppressor gene (APC) [Link]: ~10-5
  
  
• X-linked recessives
  
  • Hemophilia A [Link]
    ~3 x 10-5 (the Factor VIII gene)
  • Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) [Link]
    >8 x 10-5 (the dystrophin gene)
    Why should the mutation frequency in the dystrophin gene be so much larger than most of the others? It's probably a matter of size. The dystrophin gene stretches over 2.3 x 106 base pairs of DNA. This is almost 0.1% of the entire human genome! Such a huge gene offers many possibilities for damage.
  
  

Measuring Mutation Rate

The frequency with which a given mutation is seen in a population (e.g., the mutation that causes cystic fibrosis) provides only a rough approximation of mutation rate — the rate at which fresh mutations occur — because of historical factors at work such as

• natural selection (positive or negative)
• drift
• founder effect

In addition, most methods for counting mutations require that the mutation have a visible effect on the phenotype. Thus

• mutations in noncoding DNA
• mutations that produce
  
  • synonymous codons (encode the same amino acid)
  • or, sometimes, new codons that encode a chemically-similar amino acid
  
  
• mutations which disrupt a gene whose functions are redundant; that is, can be compensated for by other genes

will not be seen. But now these problems have been largely solved. The story is told in a report by D. R. Denver, et al. in the 5 August 2004 issue of Nature.
The Procedure

• Their organism = C. elegans
• Its advantages
  
  • compact genome
  • hermaphroditic — it fertilizes its own eggs and any new germline mutation will soon be either lost or appear on both homologous chromosomes.
  • rapid generation time (4 days)
  
  
• They created 198 different experimental lines of worms.
• They grew them under optimum conditions to minimize any effects of natural selection.
• Only one offspring was kept at each new generation.
• Each line was maintained for several hundred generations.
• At the end of this time, random stretches of DNA
  
  • derived from multiple locations on each of the six C. elegans chromosomes and
  • totalling an average of ~21 thousand base pairs for each line
  
  were sequenced from each of the 198 lines and the sequences compared with the same loci in natural populations of C. elegans.

Results

Examining the DNA sequences from their experimental animals (a total of over 4 million base pairs!), and comparing them with the controls, turned up a total of 30 mutations.

• 17 of these were insertions or deletions ("indels')
  
  • 7 in exons — all but 2 of which produced frameshifts and a premature STOP codon.
  • 10 in introns or between genes
  
  
• 13 of these were single base substitutions ("point" mutations)
  
  • 3 in exons : one "silent" producing a synonymous codon; two that changed the encoded amino acid.
  • 10 in introns or between genes
  
  

Calculating Mutation Rate

From these results I have pooled their data to calculate an approximate rate at which spontaneous mutations occur throughout the genome.
Mutation Rate = # of mutations observed [30] ÷ (# of experimental lines [198]) x (average # of generations [339]) x (average # of base pairs sequenced [~21,000])
yielding a rate of 2.1 x 10-8 mutations per base pair per generation.
The total C. elegans genome contains some 108 base pairs so this tells us that two new germline mutations occur somewhere in each of C. elegans's two haploid genomes in each generation.
A similar analysis for Drosophila (whose genome is about the same size as that of C. elegans) showed a similar mutation rate: ~10-8 mutations per base pair per generation. As for the green plant Arabidopsis thaliana, its spontaneous mutation rate is slightly lower: ~7 x 10-9 mutations per base pair per generation.
In the 30 April 2010 issue of Science, Roach, J. C., et al., reported that the rate for humans is in the same range: ~1.1 x 10-8 mutations per base pair in the haploid genome. With a diploid genome of 6 x 109 base pairs, that works out to some 70 new mutations in each child. They derived these numbers from comparing the complete genome sequence of two children and their parents.
Should we be worried about such sponateous mutation rates? Probably not. With our high proportion of "junk" DNA, many mutations will occur in regions that will have no effect on our phenotype.
Males Contribute More Mutations Than Females

If most mutations occur during S phase of cell division, then males should be more at risk. This is because

• only two dozen (24) or so mitotic divisions occur from the fertilized egg that starts a little girl's embryonic development and the setting aside of her future eggs (which is done long before she is even born).
• The sperm of 30-year old man, in contrast, is the descendant of at least 400 mitotic divisions since the fertilized egg that formed him.

So,

• fathers are more likely than mothers to transmit newly-formed mutations to their children. (But chromosomal aberrations, like aneuploidy, are more apt to arise in eggs than in sperm.)
• The children of aged fathers suffer more genetic disorders than those of young fathers.

Actual measurements show that this phenomenon of "male bias" is not as bad as the numbers suggest. Possible reasons:

• Perhaps many mutations (e.g., those caused by chemicals within the cell or by radiation) occur independently of DNA replication and thus would affect males and females equally.
• Even in an older man, fresh sperm may come from precursor stem cells that have been held in "reserve" and are not the result of years of mitotic divisions.
• Evolution may have led to mechanisms that enhance the accuracy of DNA repair in the precursors of sperm.

Somatic vs. Germline Mutations

The significance of mutations is profoundly influenced by the distinction between germline and soma. Mutations that occur in a somatic cell, in the bone marrow or liver for example, may

• damage the cell
• make the cell cancerous
• kill the cell

Whatever the effect, the ultimate fate of that somatic mutation is to disappear when the cell in which it occurred, or its owner, dies. Germline mutations, in contrast, will be found in every cell descended from the zygote to which that mutant gamete contributed. If an adult is successfully produced, every one of its cells will contain the mutation. Included among these will be the next generation of gametes, so if the owner is able to become a parent, that mutation will pass down to yet another generation.

Source

as you can see they all lead to death/disease, and some have no sequela like 'silent mutations' hence the name!

2) Isn't a single protein far too complex ever to come into being spontaneously?

Indeed..

3) Would a protein, DNA, RNA or any other minute component of the cell serve any purpose in the absence of the cell as a whole?

It wouldn't be possible for it to carry function without a host!

and Allah swt knows best

:w:

[Argamemnon]

[QUOTE=τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1368551]

Mutations come in different varieties:
you can read in detail here:


Source

as you can see they all lead to death/disease, and some have no sequela like 'silent mutations' hence the name!

Indeed..

It wouldn't be possible for it to carry function without a host!

and Allah swt knows best

:w:

Thank you sis. I can't fully understand the details with no background in science like you, but it's obvious that mutations don't produce new living things. Species don't emerge from one another through countless mutations creating new organs. Evolutionists should prove that countless mutations in a crocodile for example could add new information about a wing to his DNA which would enable him to fly. If they could prove this I would understand that Allah has created evolution but He didn't create such a system.

:w:

[Amoeba]

1) You have admitted that you lack scientific knowledge.

2) You used a flawed analogy as well as a baseless assumption to describe why evolution cannot occur.

3) How can you say with such certainty that Allah has not created such a system?

It's entirely possible by Allah's will. And there is plenty of evidence to support the possibility that evolution is a valid process. And whoever told you that all mutations lead to death or disease was speaking without knowledge. We do know that in the fastest reproducing organisms evolution has been observed. Just in the slower reproducing organisms like ourselves too few generations pass over a long space of time for it to be observable. At this point in time, we don't know either way whether evolution is true or not in larger organisms. But we do know it is true in micro organisms.

[Argamemnon]

How is my analogy flawed, give me one example of a beneficial mutation. And variations, which pagan priests also call micro evolution can never create new genetic information and are thus unable to bring about evolution. Living things can't develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:

2) Isn't a single protein far too complex ever to come into being spontaneously?

Yes. Science has not shown what method nature uses to form proteins from amino acids.

Since a specific order is required [just like programming], it would seem praiseworthy to argue in favour of an Intelligent Being controlling that [God.]

3) Would a protein, DNA, RNA or any other minute component of the cell serve any purpose in the absence of the cell as a whole?

Imagine DNA/RNA like a design for a product. You will need builders [cell organelles] to build the product from that design.

The factory will be the cell, the workers [cell organelles] will be within it (the membrane of the cell), and they will work together to produce new proteins etc.


So the question is, how did the factory originate in the first place?


See this;
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...cal-truth.html

[Amoeba]

Speaking theoretically about the crocodile analogy...

Because from what we have seen, no tetrapod has ever evolved a new set of limbs because the new genetic information needed is too great - evolution in biology terms is a much more gradual process. A crocodile couldn't evolve a new set of wings unless it were to undergo other changes that would lead to the development of its fore limbs to become wings. Since a crocodile is a heavy semi-aquatic animal, becoming a flier is not only illogical but unlikely.

A better example might be imagining a flying squirrel developing wings over a consecutive line of changes over thousands or millions of generations. They don't have wings, just regular limbs, but have the environmental pressures and some basic features that could lead to wing development, such as flying being an advantage to it because of its arboreal lifestyle, and a membrane that causes the air pressure beneath it to increase during a glide.

As for beneficial mutations, have you ever heard of the bacteria (can't remember what it's called) that eats nylon? Nylon is a synthetic product that doesn't occur in nature. However a type of bacteria was able to adapt to the invention of nylon to break it down. This was a result of a mutation, one that benefited this type of bacteria. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare, and are best observed in animals that reproduce very quickly as many mutations that occur do so during reproduction.

[Amoeba]

Not animals, organisms. Bacteria are not animals.

Where is the edit button?

[Rabi Mansur]

How is my analogy flawed, give me one example of a beneficial mutation. And variations, which pagan priests also call micro evolution can never create new genetic information and are thus unable to bring about evolution. Living things can't develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.

:sl:
I don't understand where you are coming from. An obvious example of a mutation is how new breeds of dogs get their start from a single mutation. Breeds of dogs with very short legs, like dachshunds, acquire them with the genetic mutation called achondroplasia. A similar mutation is responsible for human dwarfism (where the trunk is nearly normal size but legs and arms are short).
Dog breeders have achieved changes in size and shape and demeanor of dogs by selecting combinations of mutations. They can breed dogs for all kinds of desired (beneficial?) characteristics and have been doing it for centuries. A huge amount of evolutionary change has been achieved in just a few centuries with dog breeds. The great variety among dogs from Great Danes to dachshunds from St. Bernards to poodles shows how dramatic changes can be made in anatomy so fast. If that much evolutionary change can happen in a few centuries, imagine what can happen in a hundred million years.

Most mutations that occur in nature may appear to be disadvantageous. They are random and there are many more ways of getting worse than better. However, some would argue that most are actually neutral as they are not detected by natural selection but can be detected by molecular geneticists.

The mutations that are not neutral are selected positively or negatively in the evolution of improvements.
They are the mutations that we actually see and are seen as well by natural selection. To say that the mutation is neutral doesn't mean that it is useless. It can be important to the animal's survival.

Another example of a "beneficial" mutation that I have heard mentioned would be the mutation that occurred in the protein of a muscle of the human jaw that reduced our ability to chew with huge force. Before this mutation occurred our genetic ancestors were able to chew with much more force than we now have, gorillas I believe, don't have this mutation and can bite down with an extreme amount of force. As a result of the mutation, human brains became bigger but lost the ability to chew with great force. Is that a "beneficial" mutation? As far as being able to develop more brain power it is beneficial. As far as eating food it is a negative mutation. Depends on what you consider "beneficial"?

[جوري]

There is a difference between macro and micro-evolution.. a new dog with short legs isn't a new specie in the beginning and the end he is still a dog..
adaptation isn't the same thing as speciation... but this has been all discussed before so there is no reason to go over it again.

amoeba: we don't go on the attack with brothers and sisters on the forum who are making honest queries. If you don't have an enlightened style with which to share your admitted 'theoretical' knowledge then there is no need to reply at all.. what do you think?

on a last note, those who believe that life evolved from a single cell because they don't like the 'absurdity' of the Adam and eve story in actuality are setting themselves back an infinite amount of steps and still not accounting for them in a scientific, experimental, demonstrable fashion .. for you still have to work your way up to a functional being in a very forward fashion, and make two sexes thereof for continuous production .. ''a looooooooooooong time' sprinkle of sun shine' and water and some periodic elements, I fear don't cut it, when we are speaking of very complex physiological and biochemical pathways, in which every enzyme missing could potentially spell a disaster setting you back to stage one if at all, and then do it for as many species as have existed and continue to exist!

:w:

[Argamemnon]

I think the term micro-evolution is meaningless.

:w:

[Amoeba]

:confused: I assure you, I am not on the attack. I don't really know what makes you think I am because I have been polite and straight forward. Though I am a little saddened and disheartened at the very defensive response.

Anyway the theory of evolution is just a theory. There isn't really anything that proves it or disproves it concretely, and because we think that life is too complex to suffer small changes doesn't mean we're right. As said before organisms can survive and thrive faced with certain mutations. I answered the questions to the best of my ability. But I can see my input is not appreciated here so I'll be on my way...

[Rabi Mansur]

:confused: I assure you, I am not on the attack. I don't really know what makes you think I am because I have been polite and straight forward. Though I am a little saddened and disheartened at the very defensive response.

Anyway the theory of evolution is just a theory. There isn't really anything that proves it or disproves it concretely, and because we think that life is too complex to suffer small changes doesn't mean we're right. As said before organisms can survive and thrive faced with certain mutations. I answered the questions to the best of my ability. But I can see my input is not appreciated here so I'll be on my way...

:sl:
I thought your responses were fine and didn't see them as an attack. As I understand it, one does not have to disbelieve evolution to be Muslim.
Evolution is so often discarded as "just a theory" without defining "theory." There are basically two meanings attached to "theory." There is the first one that defines a theory as conjecture, speculation, etc. But the one that fits evolutional theory is the second definition for theory, it is the definition in the sense that something is a system of ideas, a scheme, an explanation for a group of facts, etc.

The "theory" of evolution does not fit under the first definition, it is the second definition that applies. It is in this sense a theory just as the theory that the earth and other planets orbit the sun (heliocentric theory of the solar system).

In this day and age evolution has become an established and supported system of ideas although there still may be some who argue over whether natural selection is the driving force any serious biologist will tell you that natural selection is the driving force of evolution toward positive improvement.

In most cases we don't live long enough to see it happen before our eyes, hence to many it is not so obvious.

I know Lily likes to differentiate between micro and macro evolution. To me it is a very slow process with small changes that are not often identifiable for thousands of years. It takes generations for big changes to show up, however, every animal of every species changes during its stage as an embryo far more dramatically than the adult changes from generation to generation. Look at all the changes a human embryo goes through to become a baby. Truly amazing.

[hasan2]

I was involved in a "Creation ministry" some years back,
and I would like to challenge the evolutionists out there.

First of all, there is most definitely evolution within each separate species,
e.g. evolution within the dog species.

But, try to bring forth an "intermediate form" fossil,
i.e. a fossil that is between one species and another species,
e.g. between the dog species and the cat species.


GOD created each species separate and distinct,
and there has been no evolution (to speak of) between species.

The most ridiculous theory ever invented by Satan ...
that has been believed by many is: man evolved from an omeba.

I'm not up on cross-breeding between species,
has there been any, i.e. between dogs and cats?

[GuestFellow]

Salaam,

I have a question, are we still evolving?

[جوري]

yes-- but you have to travel to the island of Dr. Moreau for that immediate gratification..

[Rabi Mansur]

I was involved in a "Creation ministry" some years back,
and I would like to challenge the evolutionists out there.

First of all, there is most definitely evolution within each separate species,
e.g. evolution within the dog species.

But, try to bring forth an "intermediate form" fossil,
i.e. a fossil that is between one species and another species,
e.g. between the dog species and the cat species.


GOD created each species separate and distinct,
and there has been no evolution (to speak of) between species.

The most ridiculous theory ever invented by Satan ...
that has been believed by many is: man evolved from an omeba.

I'm not up on cross-breeding between species,
has there been any, i.e. between dogs and cats?
[S

IZE=2]

:sl:

So you are saying that God created a separate species of dogs and cats? When did he do that? Nothing personal, but domestic dogs are modified wolves. Molecular genetic evidence has shown that. In fact, as I mentioned above, dogs are a good example of how the selection of genes over a few centuries can actually result in an astonishing amount of evolutionary change. The diverse variety from tiny Yorkies to St. Bernards to poodles to chinese pugs shows how dramatic evolutionary change can occur over a short time period.
You asked about bringing forth an intermediate species between a cat and a dog. No one is saying that a cat descended from a dog or vice versa. But dogs and cats share an ancestor which certainly looked nothing like a dog or a cat. Every one of the millions of species of animals shares an ancestor with every other one.
I don't want to get into a big evolution debate, but the argument that there is no species between a cat and a dog just fundamentally mistates what evolution is all about.

:wa:

[Rabi Mansur]

Salaam,

I have a question, are we still evolving?

Yes. And you did an amazing amount of evolving over a period of just 9 months.;D

[جوري]

Yes. And you did an amazing amount of evolving over a period of just 9 months.;D

he evolved from two pre-programmed cells into something human no? and needed a host?

you confuse people with the terms, evolution doesn't equal to speciation!

:w:

[Rabi Mansur]

he evolved from two pre-programmed cells into something human no? and needed a host?

you confuse people with the terms, evolution doesn't equal to speciation!

:w:

Yeah, I'm not saying he evolved into a different species. I'm just saying look at the incredible amount of change that went on over nine months.

[جوري]

Yeah, I'm not saying he evolved into a different species. I'm just saying look at the incredible amount of change that went on over nine months.

sounds good to me.. sob7an Allah it is an amazing thing indeed..

16:13 to top in surah

Muhsin Khan
And whatsoever He has created for you on this earth of varying colours [and qualities from vegetation and fruits, etc. (botanical life) and from animal (zoological life)]. Verily! In this is a sign for people who remember.

Pickthall
Allah hath created every animal of water. Of them is (a kind) that goeth upon its belly and (a kind) that goeth upon two legs and (a kind) that goeth upon four. Allah createth what He will. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.

[GuestFellow]

Yes. And you did an amazing amount of evolving over a period of just 9 months.;D

So please explain this to me? How are we still evolving? Sorry, I am clueless when it comes to science.

I'm just saying look at the incredible amount of change that went on over nine months.

:X

@ τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

That picture is hilarious. XD

[Rabi Mansur]

So please explain this to me? How are we still evolving? Sorry, I am clueless when it comes to science.



:X



@ τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

That picture is hilarious. XD

:sl:

It is a slow process but we are still evolving.

http://http://www.time.com/time/heal...931757,00.html

[mrquestion]

I have another question I want to add to the list :
evolution assume that humans are derived from monkeys, or have the same monkey-like ancestor in common with monkeys.
You know, monkey males AND females have both a lot of hair on their body (males and females have the same quantity of hair on their skin). Now why human males have more hair than human females : are men more primitive than women ? that's absurd. What conditions made women evolve in a different way than men ?

Dihydrotestosterone

[CosmicPathos]

Mutations could be "beneficial", depends on how you define benefit. The most thrown around card is that of sickle cell trait and how it helps people in African to clear malarial infections faster than those who have either normal RBC or sickle celled RBC. But keep in mind that sickle cell trait patients can undergo crises as well in certain hypoxic conditions where people with normal RBC would not .....

[mrquestion]

So please explain this to me? How are we still evolving? Sorry, I am clueless when it comes to science.




That picture is hilarious. XD

Yes, we are still evolving. Our jaws are getting smaller as we no longer have to hunt and scavange food but go to a shop and buy, which explains our wisdom teeth. If we are still around in 10 thousand years our wisdom teeth will have disapeared. Our heads are growing, which probably explains why child birth is so dramatic! noone knows what we will look like in hundreds of thousands of years, but it's pretty likely we'll look substantially different

[جوري]

Dihydrotestosterone

What out dihydrotesterone-- do you just want to throw out words? lol.. here is one you can use dysdiadokinesia (funny stuff)

Mutations could be "beneficial", depends on how you define benefit. The most thrown around card is that of sickle cell trait and how it helps people in African to clear malarial infections faster than those who have either normal RBC or sickle celled RBC. But keep in mind that sickle cell trait patients can undergo crises as well in certain hypoxic conditions where people with normal RBC would not .....

There is nothing 'beneficial' at all about mutations (sometimes) silent mutations confer neither positivity nor negativity. However, having sickle cell trait is a misery all its own.. they can have isosthenuria or a crisis that is equivalent of sickle cell disease at high altitude amongst other problems!

Yes, we are still evolving. Our jaws are getting smaller as we no longer have to hunt and scavange food but go to a shop and buy, which explains our wisdom teeth. If we are still around in 10 thousand years our wisdom teeth will have disapeared. Our heads are growing, which probably explains why child birth is so dramatic! noone knows what we will look like in hundreds of thousands of years, but it's pretty likely we'll look substantially differen

what about our wisdom teeth? and you've given birth before to know all about its trauma? There are four types of pelvis outlets Gyneacoid Pelvis, Android Pelvis, The Anthropoid Pelvis and The Platypelloid Pelvis.. that would explain the 'trauma' in some childbirth not 'evolution'

atheists are so smart.. thank God for their presence to enlighten the world!

but alas we can catch up with all those aliens that have been plaguing us in a few thousand years with their bigger heads and smaller jaw line..

[CosmicPathos]

yes-- but you have to travel to the island of Dr. Moreau for that immediate gratification..

hahaha lol funny stuff ... crack headed evolutionists.

[hasan2]

So you are saying that God created a separate species of dogs and cats? When did he do that? Nothing personal, but domestic dogs are modified wolves. Molecular genetic evidence has shown that. In fact, as I mentioned above, dogs are a good example of how the selection of genes over a few centuries can actually result in an astonishing amount of evolutionary change. The diverse variety from tiny Yorkies to St. Bernards to poodles to chinese pugs shows how dramatic evolutionary change can occur over a short time period.
You asked about bringing forth an intermediate species between a cat and a dog. No one is saying that a cat descended from a dog or vice versa. But dogs and cats share an ancestor which certainly looked nothing like a dog or a cat. Every one of the millions of species of animals shares an ancestor with every other one.
I don't want to get into a big evolution debate, but the argument that there is no species between a cat and a dog just fundamentally mistates what evolution is all about.

The theory of evolution is all about humans evolving from an omeba,
and I guess that includes animals along the way.
I think you are just spouting your beliefs (in red).
Show me some fossils of all of these millions of species which no longer exist.
Re: the dogs, for example, maybe there were separate species created.

[Rabi Mansur]

The theory of evolution is all about humans evolving from an omeba,
and I guess that includes animals along the way.
I think you are just spouting your beliefs (in red).
Show me some fossils of all of these millions of species which no longer exist.
Re: the dogs, for example, maybe there were separate species created.

Go spend some time in a museum. There are thousands of these fossils that show "species" that no longer exist. I don't know how obvious it has to be. Have you read any textbooks that discuss evolution or are you just not happy with the idea of evolution?

Here is a link you might find interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/sc...?_r=1&src=dayp

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;

Pickthall
Allah hath created every animal of water. Of them is (a kind) that goeth upon its belly and (a kind) that goeth upon two legs and (a kind) that goeth upon four. Allah createth what He will. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.

[/FONT

Our scriptures say that species have been created according to their kind, and science comes up with an alternative explanation. Who is going to have to change their explanation, scriptures or science?

We can call evolution a theory, but can we call scriptures a theory?

Scriptures come from God, there is no more to be said.

In the spirit of searching for a proper explanation

Eric

[FS123]

Greetings and peace be with you τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;



Our scriptures say that species have been created according to their kind, and science comes up with an alternative explanation. Who is going to have to change their explanation, scriptures or science?

We can call evolution a theory, but can we call scriptures a theory?

Scriptures come from God, there is no more to be said.

In the spirit of searching for a proper explanation

Eric

The verse doesn't say how, it just says Allah has created them.

[hasan2]

Do a search on ... "bombadier beetle"

Proof it couldn't possibly evolved from anything into anything, etc.

[Rabi Mansur]

Do a search on ... "bombadier beetle"

Proof it couldn't possibly evolved from anything into anything, etc.

I did. Sorry I'm not persuaded.
Check this out.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

[CosmicPathos]

I did. Sorry I'm not persuaded.
Check this out.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

you actually believe that process mechanism given on that site on how that "might"have evolved? they did not provide any evidence of those "sequential" steps.

[Trumble]

they did not provide any evidence of those "sequential" steps.

The essential point is that a possible explanation is provided in evolutionary terms as, to the dismay of creationists, it usually is. Evidence may prove a little hard to come by; there are probably millions of insect species alive today that have yet to be catalogued, let alone those now long extinct.

[GuestFellow]

Can anyone explain to me how evolution works? Like an overview. Some websites are rather confusing...

[Woodrow]

Can anyone explain to me how evolution works? Like an overview. Some websites are rather confusing...

To begin with and to clarify a few common misconceptions. Evolution has nothing to do with how life was created. Darwin never wrote as much as one theory of evolution. His book origin of species, was not a theory of evolution, it was a theory of how natural selection results in survival of the fittest.

Now with that out of the way there are 2 parts of evolution micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is not a theory, it is an observable fact and is ongoing in each species. It is not about one species changing into another species, it is about all species that survive will develop the needed changes to survive in the environment. Appearances may change somewhat but it remains the same species. Cows are a good example. All cows are the same species and you can inter breed all of them. they all had the very same ancestors, kind of skinny brush eating creatures. But today's cows occur in a multitude of shapes and colors. Some are specifically heavy milk producers and some are heavy bodied meat producers. But they are all cows. That is micro-evolution. It is observable, replicable and does not conflict with creationism.

Macro-evolution is essentially all theory. It is a theory of all life coming from unicellular creatures and becoming all of the varied life forms we have today. This is the area of evolution that gets into the theoretical realm and is at odds with creationist concepts.

Hope that helps a little.

[IAmZamzam]

GuestFellow, suppose that a world-flooding torrent covered pretty much 100% of the earth's surface in water. Suppose it somehow happened overnight. Now let's say that before this flood two or three humans were, in one of mother nature's freak accidents, born with something vaguely akin to gills. They would be the ones likeliest to survive and repopulate. It's not that the flood gave them gills, it just made the gill people the obvious survivors. Their descendants would pretty much constitute the entirety of what used to be the human race. Indeed, in the process the gillmen might become more like The Gill Man, the further genetic anomalies which serve to help survival causing future generations still to become more and more like aquatic non-humans. It is possible that some of the original humans have survived all this time (or at least part of it), just like it's possible for the original white parents of a white child to still be alive once that child has grown up and started his own family with a black partner, the children becoming black within maybe one or two generations. And so on.

This is a fantastical example, I know, and I didn't even think of it myself, but with my limited understanding of these matters and my laziness it's the best analogy I have right now.

[GuestFellow]

To begin with and to clarify a few common misconceptions. Evolution has nothing to do with how life was created. Darwin never wrote as much as one theory of evolution. His book origin of species, was not a theory of evolution, it was a theory of how natural selection results in survival of the fittest.

Now with that out of the way there are 2 parts of evolution micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is not a theory, it is an observable fact and is ongoing in each species. It is not about one species changing into another species, it is about all species that survive will develop the needed changes to survive in the environment. Appearances may change somewhat but it remains the same species. Cows are a good example. All cows are the same species and you can inter breed all of them. they all had the very same ancestors, kind of skinny brush eating creatures. But today's cows occur in a multitude of shapes and colors. Some are specifically heavy milk producers and some are heavy bodied meat producers. But they are all cows. That is micro-evolution. It is observable, replicable and does not conflict with creationism.

Macro-evolution is essentially all theory. It is a theory of all life coming from unicellular creatures and becoming all of the varied life forms we have today. This is the area of evolution that gets into the theoretical realm and is at odds with creationist concepts.

Hope that helps a little.

:sl:

Thanks for the nice introduction.

One thing I am confused with. The term ''theory'' and ''fact.'' From my understanding, theory in scientific context means an explanation supported by evidence. Hypothesis is used to describe an idea in science. Are you suggesting that macro evolution is an idea/hypothesis or an explanation supported by evidence?

What does fact mean in science?

[Woodrow]

:sl:

Thanks for the nice introduction.

One thing I am confused with. The term ''theory'' and ''fact.'' From my understanding, theory in scientific context means an explanation supported by evidence. Hypothesis is used to describe an idea in science. Are you suggesting that macro evolution is an idea/hypothesis or an explanation supported by evidence?

What does fact mean in science?

In science a fact is that which can be quantified, qualified and replicable. In other words you can measure a fact, see the unique identifying features, understand and know the processes that caused and and repeat the same processes with the same processes.

I have a hard time wording the definition of theory in my own word so I blatantly copied this from a web site:

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

SOURCE

[IAmZamzam]

In the specific parlance of science, a hypothesis is a working assumption, a theory is a commonly accepted assumption in the community which is intended to explain something, and a fact is a theory that is so thoroughly accepted that nobody even bothers to test it anymore. A question or guess you try the apparent veracity of when performing an experiment is a hypothesis; after enough of the hypotheses confirm the same thing their conclusion is seen as a theory in the community. Once all contrary theories have been dismissed and the idea in question is treated as a given (at least as a default), it is a fact.