Evolution Test!

[johan]

Yeah it's quicker if someone puts them there than if they self assembled, what's your point? I never said life didn't take millions of years to come about did i?

I see an analogy to the chemical catalyst agent but at a larger size and longer time line, a larger scale model of a molecular structure. The human as an intelligent catalyst agent of the universe reaction.

Could you tell me exactly why that proves it is created, because I'm not sure I see the logic.

You can't see it? Then look at it with a clearer mindset.
If no creation were ever to happen, and all there is in this world are merely random information, there will never be in anyway repeatable, corellating, artful, wonderfull patterns that could ever evolve.

67:3 He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of ((Allah)) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?


If these patterns evolved only because of the basic properties in them. These basic properties themselves are again special patterns which are repeatable, corellating, artful, wonderfull special patterns.

67:4 Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out.

In a particle accelerator, when two particles collide and out of nowhere appear subatomic particles with different properties, what is that evidence of?

It's an evidence of our very limited sensory capabilities.
Our ability to dig down to the deepest secrets of knowledge using "our physical boundaries" has yet again reached it's limits.

We will need a much "higher level" of understanding to comprehend these disability, to "sense" these secrets.
We will need to abstract using our most precioused resource. The resource is the tool we were equipped to roam this world. The mind.

95:4 We have indeed created man in the best of moulds,

But mind alone can blur our "senses" to a point where we could be worse than animals.

95:5 Then do We abase him (to be) the lowest of the low

But there is another tool we were equipped with but of a higher importance, conscience. This tool will help us to find a way to the righteous path that has been revealed to us since the dawn of time.

95:6 Except such as believe and do righteous deeds: For they shall have a reward unfailing.

When I say, not by chance I mean that it isn't random. Like when you drop a ball, it won't move randomly and hit just anything, it will be pulled towards the earth and hit the ground. The properties of the objects cause them to act a certain way, they are not guided by an invisible hand, and it is not chance or random.

Yes, i agree.
In these seemingly random creation lies ancient rules that was established eons before us.
These rules laid the foundation of these seemingly random behavior, when it's actually a derivative of highly "calculated" chains of "reaction formulas" that are done by the fastest "processors".

You seem to have ignored the bit that says "looks like each of the molecules had to be one by one purposely placed there then somehow bonded into place. But that is not the case."

The writer is anthropomorphizing the process as if the process done one by one with "bare hands".

Anyone who knows anything about evolution realises that early on, all life would have been asexual. Just because some groups became sexual, and some stayed asexual simply because it better suited the conditions they lived in.

Believe what you like, but these creatures never had their own laboratories to enable them to change their gender, literally.

This only strengthens the argument for evolution, and weakens creationism.
e.g.
(Koran 51:49) And of every thing WE have created pairs, that ye may receive instruction.

Glad you've pointed this aya out.
IMHO, this aya is actually explaining of the creation of everything.
Currently we think that everything, theoretically speaking, consist of pairs of matter and anti matter. So it still holds and doesn't contradict.

See the bit about particle accelerators. Things just puff in and out of existence all the time in the subatomic world. You only ask 'who' because you believe that someone had a hand in it, not because there's any evidence to suggest that they did.

The foundation rules is what we need to focus our attention on when were talking about the creation and the creator. Other than that it could just be the derivative process or the aftermath of the creation of the foundation rules process. Intervention in the aftermath of the creation process is very much possible and likely though.

From what i believe in, the derivative process is what we know of eons of history since the "mechanics" of this mortal world starts to tick up to the future point ahead when the world comes to an end.

I belief that this specific and simple yet profound foundation rule is encoded and preserved in the Quran to be uncovered by the current generation for us to ponder and wonder on.

regards,
Abu 'Ammar

 

[Azy]

What I want to know is the mechanism through which sexual reproduction "evolved" from asexual. I would rather start with a summary overview than to delve through voluminous books and websites. For example, in a short paragraph I can present a pretty good overview of either Islam or Christianity. Why can't naturalistic evolutionists do the same?:?

It's obviously not the case that they "can't", they have but you can't be bothered to look and would prefer to ignore it or have us paste it all here then deny it.

If you had actually read my post you'd notice I said that it is impossible for us tell which particular mechanism was the one that resulted in sexual reproduction. There are a few candidates, as Gator has kindly helped us with, but I'm not sure if it will ever be known with certainty. A bit like buying a ring in a shop then trying to find out exactly which lump of ore it came from.

 

[MustafaMc]

Since you seem interested, here's a brief description of the current ideas being thrown around. It does of course come from the living compendium of knowledge known as wikipedia so I won't vouch for its accuracy or its comprehensiveness.

I see there are several competing theories for the evolution of sexual reproduction, but not a clear understanding of a single reasonable process. I was hoping to get someone to put forth their personal opinion or understanding as opposed to quoting from someone else verbatim.

 

[Gator]

oh ok. My personal opinion is that a mutation allowed DNA combination in an early cell and gave it a strategic advantage which was replicated. The mechanism I really don't have an opinion on.
Thanks.

 

[MustafaMc]

I am a cotton breeder and my job is to develop new varieties of cotton that have significant advantages over currently available ones. The objective is to convince cotton farmers to buy our seed instead of the competitor's seed.

One way of looking at my job is that of a practicing evolutionist. We develop new experimental lines that are higher yielding, have better fiber quality, have resistance to disease and insect pests, etc. I make cross pollinations between lines with varying combinations of traits with the goal of developing superior lines with the best possible combination of genes. We harvest about 10,000 plants a year and look to release a new variety every 2 or 3 years. This year we released a new variety that has superior yield in a broad range of environments, bacterial blight resistance and improvements in 3 of 7 fiber quality traits. God willing, we will release another one in 2010 with resistance to nematode (microscopic worm attacks the root) and that has superior yield in a specific region. A major problem is the number of genes controlling the various desirable traits and the extremely low frequency of individuals with superior combinations of genes. If you look at only 2 genes - 1 for yield (YYff) and 1 for quality (yyFF) - then the frequency of individuals in the F2 generation (2nd after the cross) that are true breeding for both genes (YYFF) is only 1 out of 16. If you consider a line with 10 superior genes for yield and another with 10 superior genes for quality then the frequency is 1 out of a trillion in the F2 that are true breeding for all 20 genes. However, that frequency assumes completely independent assortment and no unfavorable linkages between genes. This is of course an invalid assumption. Since the breaking of genetic linkage is dependent on how closely the genes are on the chromosome, the frequency of individuals with favorable combinations is actually much less than 1 in a trillion.

We work with a university in Europe that has transferred a gene for resistance to a certain nematode pest from a diploid species (2n) of cotton (no fibers) into the allotetraploid (4n) cultivated species. These 2 species of cotton (dd and AADD) are not cross compatible. The university crossed the AADD species with another diploid species (aa) to create a sterile plant (AaD) that was treated with chemical that interferes with meiosis in order to double the chromosomes and get a fertile hexapoid (AAaaDD). This hexaploid was crossed to the diploid (aa) with nematode resistance to give rise to a tri-specific hybrid (AaDd). This AaDd hybrid was male sterile and required repeated cross pollination with cultivated cotton as the male in order to get self-fertile plants. You see, we have transferred genes across species of cotton that otherwise wouldn't happen by chance.

The company that I work for has isolated a gene from a bacteria (Bacillus thuringensis) that is very toxic to a specific family of insect pests (larvae of moths and butterflies). We have rebuilt the gene to make it more plant like by putting in a plant-specific sequence that turns the gene on and another that turns it off. We combined this construct with a second gene that confers resistance to a herbicide (chemical that kills plants) in order to be able to select transformed cells that carry the genetically engineered "transgene". My company used a specific variety of cotton that is conducive to regenerating whole plants from tissue culture and transformed cell cultures to transfer the man-made construct into cotton. We now sell cotton varieties that express a bacterial protein that kills insects that eat part of the plant. You see, we have transferred a gene from a bacteria to a plant that otherwise wouldn't happen by chance.

Another company has genetically engineered cotton to not be affected by a herbicide that kills practically all other plants. Widespread use of this technology has resulted in multiple weed species developing resistance to this herbicide even though initially they were susceptible. The intensive selection pressure selected extremely rare individuals that already carried genes for resistance and these plants cross pollinated with other extremely rare individuals of the same species that carried other genes for resistance that yielded new genetic combinations that had even higher levels of resistance than their parents. So within only 13 years some weeds have evolved resistance that they otherwise would not have.

My point in all of this is that humans are actively creating superior genetic combinations and transferring genes between species that otherwise would not have happened by chance. Likewise, the existing and extinct life-forms must have had a Creator to design, create and sustain them. It didn't all "just happen by chance".

 

[Azy]

Johan I wrote a fairly long response and my pc froze up, i'll rewrite it in a bit

I am a cotton breeder and my job is to develop new varieties of cotton that have significant advantages over currently available ones.

Surely as someone who works in bioengineering you are aware that beneficial mutations come about in nature, think about MRSA. Yes, human pressure forced selection, but that isn't the same as saying that we forced the mutation in the same way that bioengineers actively splice in genetic sequences to promote resistance.
Most of the time we wouldn't notice these selections if they weren't caused by human pressure, but in some cases, like the nematode worm resistance, they came about naturally.

This argument can't go anywhere on your terms because either
1) Humans were involved in the beneficial mutations because we observed them and somehow we're culpable.
2) The ones we didn't see occur were actually like that from the start as the product of god.

There's no way that your view can allow natural selection because your view of god already has that covered.

 

[MustafaMc]

Surely as someone who works in bioengineering you are aware that beneficial mutations come about in nature, think about MRSA.

...but surely you realize that nearly all mutations lead to less fit not more fit individuals. We humans carry a heavy genetic load of deleterious mutations in the heterozygous state. What happens when 1st cousins marry? Don't they often bear children that are deformed or express genetic defects. Even the advantageous sickle cell trait (malaria resistance) is deleterious when homozygous > sickle cell anemia.

Yes, human pressure forced selection, but that isn't the same as saying that we forced the mutation in the same way that bioengineers actively splice in genetic sequences to promote resistance.

Yes, the mutation was there all along - its just that selection pressure greatly increased the frequency within the overall population. Yet, absent the selection pressure the mutation goes back to a very low frequency. This is due to the fact that the mutation often renders the individual less fit in normal conditions.

Most of the time we wouldn't notice these selections if they weren't caused by human pressure, but in some cases, like the nematode worm resistance, they came about naturally.

Yes, there is natural selection within hosts to resist pests and simultaneously within the pest to overcome those defenses.

This argument can't go anywhere on your terms because either
1) Humans were involved in the beneficial mutations because we observed them and somehow we're culpable.

We didn't cause the mutations, but rather selected for them. The same can happen in nature when conditions change to select for more favorable genes.

2) The ones we didn't see occur were actually like that from the start as the product of god.

No, I don't think that all mutations or all genetic variability were present in the primal specimens of each species. I allow for changes over time within a species through the processes outlined in evolutionary theory.

There's no way that your view can allow natural selection because your view of god already has that covered.

I have no problem with natural selection for changes within a species; however, I have a major problem with undirected evolution as the means by which all extant and extinct species "evolved" from a common ancestor.

 

[Azy]

...but surely you realize that nearly all mutations lead to less fit not more fit individuals.

Nearly is good enough.

From the site I link at the bottom you can also see there are beneficial mutations including lactose tolerance and immunity to HIV along with resistance to antibacterials as I mentioned before.

Yet, absent the selection pressure the mutation goes back to a very low frequency. This is due to the fact that the mutation often renders the individual less fit in normal conditions.

Well this is exactly the point. The conditions revert to their previous state and organisms with different traits which are more beneficial in this environment are more prevalent. The beneficial mutations have been selected for in each situation.

I have no problem with natural selection for changes within a species; however, I have a major problem with undirected evolution as the means by which all extant and extinct species "evolved" from a common ancestor.

As you know undirected evolution produces beneficial changes within species, but it has also been observed to create new species.

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
This and other examples here.

 

[MustafaMc]

Nearly is good enough.

From the site I link at the bottom you can also see there are beneficial mutations including lactose tolerance and immunity to HIV along with resistance to antibacterials as I mentioned before.Well this is exactly the point. The conditions revert to their previous state and organisms with different traits which are more beneficial in this environment are more prevalent. The beneficial mutations have been selected for in each situation.
As you know undirected evolution produces beneficial changes within species, but it has also been observed to create new species.

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
This and other examples here.

Yes, I admit that this was an example of speciation through hybridization of closely related species. By the way cotton, is also an allotetraploid (AADD) species and is thought to have evolved the same way from 2 related diploid species (AA & DD genomes).

From Wikipedia: The occurrence of polyploidy is a mechanism of speciation and is known to have resulted in new species of the plant Salsify (also known as "goatsbeard").

Goatsbeard are one example where hybrid speciation has been observed. In the early 1900s, humans introduced three species of goatsbeard into North America. These species, the Western Salsify (T. dubius), the Meadow Salsify (T. pratensis), and the Oyster Plant (T. porrifolius), are now common weeds in urban wastelands. In the 1950s, botanists found two new species in the regions of Idaho and Washington, where the three already known species overlapped. One new species, Traqopogon miscellus, is a tetraploid hybrid of T. dubius and T. pratensis. The other species, Traqopogon mirus, is also an allopolyploid, but its ancestors were T. dubius and T. porrifolius. These new species are usually referred to as "the Ownbey hybrids" after the botanist who first described them. The T. mirus population grows mainly by reproduction of its own members, but additional episodes of hybridization continue to add to the T. mirus population.

It is not out of the question for 2 cotton (or goatsbeard) species to cross pollinate and to produce a sterile plant (AD). Since cotton is a long-lived perennial plant, it is also not unreasonable that over time a branch would have formed from a non reductive mitosis cellular division (>AADD) that we can artificially induce with Colchicine. I actually did some of this treatment of a haploid plant (AD) about 22 years ago with the USDA.

 

[جوري]

Yes, I admit that this was an example of speciation through hybridization of closely related species. .

lol.. don't you love how folks talk of 'natural selection' yet can't reconcile trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders such as Huntington’s Disease, SBMA, Friedreich’s Ataxia, Myotonic Dystrophy or Fragile X Syndrome fit into that scheme? further can't use one known and documented mutations, Missense, Nonsense, frameshift, silent, or even DNA break and chromosomal translocations to demonstrate this sort of 'speciation' or anything other than a state of death or disease..there is some 100,000,000 species that exist on this earth each autonomous in its own right, even if I am to give this earth 15 billion years as opposed to the agreed upon 6-7 billion by most 'scholars in the field' with the first living organism appearing and earliest documented 1.1 billion years from earth's 'conception' and having it in the form of asexual reporduction, how often should a mutation be incorporated to allow for this positive change of plan? they read of jumping Genes on wiki and come with that atheist bravado to reference to various links when clearely unable to joint with any sort of dexterity all those seemingly immaculate events, in fact it is very easy through use of retroviruses and liposomes to introduce new genetic material into new host.. that is how folks now a days manufacture Insulin from ECOLI... lamentably with all that progressive brilliance, I haven't seen one lab Ape turn human yet from all these contrived theories documented by 'renowned scholars' such as dawkin et al. whom for some reason seem exalted in their endeavors as if their doctorate is worth more than others, such as Dr. Mullan's ---and what is the point? what is the end result of evo. shouldn't we have stopped at the stage of chiefly nocturnal insects, they seem to be more resilliant and successful a specie than human beings.. at least many 'humans' I have seen? or shouldn't we all be super human by now with a conquest over death-- what is the point of dying?

I wouldn't waste my time on atheists akhi...perhaps they should better invest some of that mcdies monies into some logical research only then can we stand a gasp in face of that 'overwhelming evidence'? Maybe with any luck they can actually learn how the scientific method works rather than cutting and pasting it for various members.. would be so nice if one of them knew how the null hypothesis works, confidence interval, types I and II error before speaking so freely for scientists and of scientific research, so the rest of us can make believe they actually know what you are talking about, the way I see it they make a$$e$ out of themselves on every thread...


Akhi Mous.. I appreciate all you are doing for the Muslim members.. but I wouldn't be aggrieved by this level of moronity.. if anything it is great for a chuckle...

 

[Azy]

Eve, for all the intellect you seem to possess you can't help using all these strawman arguments as a crutch.

MustafaMc - You're obviously aware of the mechanics of speciation and natural selection, but do not accept that they are responsible for the diversity of life we see and it's origins.
I would be interested to know how you reconcile your knowledge and beliefs with the changes shown in the fossil record?

 

[barney]

.there is some 100,000,000 species that exist on this earth :

Thats a lot for Noah to have cleared up after.

 

[جوري]

Thats a lot for Noah to have cleared up after.

if you didn't get all your stories from the bible perhaps what Noah took on his ship would make more sense?.. care to read suret al'mo'emnoon? might shed some light on it..
http://www.islamway.com/?iw_s=outdo...mber=1&mp3_size=5.18&rm_number=1&rm_size=2.73

I guess I too would feel threatened as a christian trying to afix my beliefs with logic.. but I am not!


cheers

 

[barney]

if you didn't get all your stories from the bible perhaps what Noah took on his ship would make more sense?.. care to read suret al'mo'emnoon? might shed some light on it..
http://www.islamway.com/?iw_s=outdo...mber=1&mp3_size=5.18&rm_number=1&rm_size=2.73

I guess I too would feel threatened as a christian trying to afix my beliefs with logic.. but I am not!


cheers

I know the surah well and that God diddnt kill the animals and they werent in the boat. I was directing it towards the Jews &-Christians.

The koran dosnt even state that all humans died. It just seems like a very local flood.

 

[MustafaMc]

I would be interested to know how you reconcile your knowledge and beliefs with the changes shown in the fossil record?

I haven't thought much about fossils since my senior year in college - 26 years ago. I missed graduating with honors due to making a "B" in that blasted 1 hour geology lab. Anyway, I had fun hunting for fossils in MS and AL. I actually found a prehistoric shark tooth 150 miles from the Gulf of Mexico - so cool.

 

[Azy]

I haven't thought much about fossils since my senior year in college - 26 years ago. I missed graduating with honors due to making a "B" in that blasted 1 hour geology lab. Anyway, I had fun hunting for fossils in MS and AL. I actually found a prehistoric shark tooth 150 miles from the Gulf of Mexico - so cool.

I hope one day I'll get to go on a proper excavation. My favourite period is the Jurassic, mainly because the north-east coast of england has a lot of exposed strata from then. I've only been a couple of times but I found half an ammonite once, it was a great feeling.

But yeah, another thing about the Jurassic is that you won't find any mammal fossils. There are plenty of large mammals today that you'd think would fossilise well, but instead you find a great many extinct species, like the dinosaurs, early birds, frogs and the like, but not a single example of a fossilised mammal.

 

[Gator]

Another company has genetically engineered cotton to not be affected by a herbicide that kills practically all other plants. Widespread use of this technology has resulted in multiple weed species developing resistance to this herbicide even though initially they were susceptible. ...So within only 13 years some weeds have evolved resistance that they otherwise would not have.

My point in all of this is that humans are actively creating superior genetic combinations and transferring genes between species that otherwise would not have happened by chance. Likewise, the existing and extinct life-forms must have had a Creator to design, create and sustain them. It didn't all "just happen by chance".

Very interesting thread. I'm an investment banker and we're working with an Asian company that produces hybrid rice.

I'm confused a little. You say that "all of this is that humans are actively creating superior genetic combinations" but then you site the evolving resistance of the weeds. Are you saying that the other company has genetically engineered the weeds to be resistant to the herbicide along with the resistant wheat? How exactly did the weeds become resistant?

Also, you state that there are mutations and that some could be positive (your use of the word nearly). Why can a "random" process" cause genetic changes. I don't see the supporting arguments for you conclusion.

Thanks.

 

[MustafaMc]

Very interesting thread. I'm an investment banker and we're working with an Asian company that produces hybrid rice.

I'm confused a little. You say that "all of this is that humans are actively creating superior genetic combinations" but then you site the evolving resistance of the weeds. Are you saying that the other company has genetically engineered the weeds to be resistant to the herbicide along with the resistant wheat? How exactly did the weeds become resistant?

The herbicide inhibits a specific enzyme that is critical to synthesizing a few specific amino acids that are subsequently required in protien synthesis. The genetically engineered plants (cotton, soybean, corn, etc) over-express this particular enzyme such that the herbicide does not interfere with plant health. I don't know the mechanism for how the weeds developed resistance, but I can imagine a selection for highly active promoters to turn the gene on and make more of the enzyme. Perhaps, there was a mutation that altered the structure of the enzyme enough that it was unaffected by the herbicide.

Also, you state that there are mutations and that some could be positive (your use of the word nearly). Why can a "random" process" cause genetic changes.

Well, mutations apparently are randomly caused by many different agents. A mutation can be as simple as sustituting a single nucleic acid, say adenine for a cytosine. This is called a point mutation. To generate a protein, a double-strand of DNA is transcribed into single-strand mRNA (messenger), which is then matched up to rRNA (ribosomal) which carries a single amino acid. The matching sequence is 3 nucleic acids with different sequences matching up with different amino acids. A protein is comprised of many amino acids in a specific sequence attached by peptide bonds end like beads on a string, but then the amino acids interact with each other and form secondary bonds due to positive and negative charges. The substitution of a tyrosine (aromatic) for a glycine (simple) amino acid can dramatically affect the 3D folding of the resulting polypeptide (protein). If this change affects protein function, then it is nearly always less effective than the unmutated "wild-type" - unless the environment changes and the mutation now has a selective advantage.

I don't see the supporting arguments for you conclusion.

Clarify your question and I will try to respond.

 

[Gator]

I just wanted to know why you believed the process couldn't have been random given, it wasn't clear in your post.

No need to respond, I think I get the gist. Thanks for your reply and appreciated the dialog.

 

[MustafaMc]

I just wanted to know why you believed the process couldn't have been random given, it wasn't clear in your post.

No need to respond, I think I get the gist. Thanks for your reply and appreciated the dialog.

I have agreed that the evolutionary process can explain the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, herbicide resistant weeds, insecticide resistant insects, new species of goatsbeard, etc. In these cases, I don't have an issue with evolution as being random, or "undirected by a Higher Being". I can understand this process in those terms, but I can't understand the process by which a unicellular common ancestor gave rise to all plant, animal, fungal, bacterial species that are orders of magnitude more complex.