Evolution Pros and Cons

[Pyrotex]

...My request was that anyone who understood the biochemical basis of life, which of necessity yields the mechanisms for evolution as well as any other life process, would explain these processes. ...

I would like to point out that YOU do not understand biochemistry, have made NO attempts to explain biochemistry, and have shown no clues that you have a background in biochemistry.

 

Why should we waste our time, DQ, if you are not "up" for supporting your side of this "conversation"? You demand that WE do all the research and brain work and you just ignore it, or dismiss it.

 

This is not just a response to you, but to ALL the posters in this thread. You are apparently not here to learn about biochemistry or the chemical beginnings of life. People who contribute to your threads invariably become frustrated with your uncooperative, contemptuous and dismissive attitude. So, why should we go to any trouble for you?

 

Perhaps we should ignore YOU and start our own thread.

Your serious and well-considered responses are welcome.

[Biochemist]

I would like to point out that YOU do not understand biochemistry, have made NO attempts to explain biochemistry, and have shown no clues that you have a background in biochemistry....People who contribute to your threads invariably become frustrated with your uncooperative, contemptuous and dismissive attitude....

 

Perhaps we should ignore YOU and start our own thread.

Your serious and well-considered responses are welcome.

Interesting post, Pyro. I have mixed feeling about posting a response to this, but I decided to go ahead.

 

My experience here on Hypography does not really support that position that a well-framed argument gets well-framed scientific responses. Most participants here are (as we would expect) novices in most subject areas. In any new thread, any poster with an informed position necessarily has to post some sort of "science 101" discussion to undergird an argument. My own experience in discussions that involve biochemistry (specifically) is that the process of undergirding an argument (with entry-level detail) makes most folks drop out (or change topics). Very narrow threads get a very narrow audience. Broader threads attract a mix of folks, most of whom are (necessarily) novices. Novices tend not to think in the scientific method. They take a positoin a defend it. Science sorts do that too, but hopefully with a little more data driven perspective. That is probably generally true, but there are certainly a lot of counterexamples on these forums.

 

All that being said, all big areas of science have factions. That is not going to go away soon. I thought it was sort of our job to (at least occasionally) attempt to go through the "science 101" discussions here to bring the novices up to speed.

 

It sounds like you are suggesting that the only folks who should start threads are holders of scientifically sound positions. Are you?

 

Bio

[Pyrotex]

Interesting post, Pyro. I have mixed feeling ...It sounds like you are suggesting that the only folks who should start threads are holders of scientifically sound positions. Are you?...

Good question, and you raise a valid point.

 

No, I am NOT suggesting that only "qualified" folks can start threads. My comment was directed specifically and entirely to Questor, who has been starting, hijacking and posting in threads here at Hypography for some time. He has been suspended for his behavior multiple times.

 

It was fine for Q to start a thread on a subject he knew nothing about. I've done that. But I wanted to learn something. Or I wanted to know if what I "knew" was shared by others. When necessary, I was willing to research Wikipedia or wherever in search of facts and opinions. Q does not do these things. This is a conclusion reached by monitoring his posts for a long time. It appears that he often copies long and very technically detailed texts from creationist websites and posts them here, and demands that we refute it. Even when we do, it makes no difference with him. After a time, he posts the same or similar texts and begins all over again. He, himself, makes little if any contribution to the thread at all.

 

Comments?

[Biochemist]

No, I am NOT suggesting that only "qualified" folks can start threads....

Comments?

Understood. I am not aware of any position taken by the keepers of the keys here about the nature of "contribution" when a thread is launched. I think it would be a useful exercise for Tormod and company to list some obligations for a thread starter. I sort of like the idea.

 

Bio

[freeztar]

Understood. I am not aware of any position taken by the keepers of the keys here about the nature of "contribution" when a thread is launched. I think it would be a useful exercise for Tormod and company to list some obligations for a thread starter. I sort of like the idea.

 

Bio

 

The only obligations for a thread starter are to follow the site rules.

[Pyrotex]

The only obligations for a thread starter are to follow the site rules.

Absolutely.

 

But after a while, it may become obvious that the thread starter is just leading a wild goose chase. When I see this is the case, I generally:

1) craft several responses that show the "perp" he/she is being monitored

2) confront the "perp" via PM that his/her tactics are trollish and request a change

3) issue a few negative-reps for the more egregious posts

4) issue infractions with accompanying explanatory notes

5) describe the trollish tactics to the entire thread and demand the "perp" change

6) engage other moderators in a concensus conversation

7) permanently or temporarily ban the "perp"

[HydrogenBond]

There is a misunderstanding, that there are only two possible positions when it comes to evolution. Either you are for it or you are a creationist. The position I take is evolution is essentially genetic based, leading to selective advantage. But there is also a middle area that is a little thin.

 

I am trying to point out if we start with a genetic change, there is an entire middle that has to happen before we reach selective advantage. For example, say we have a new gene forming on the DNA that has the potential to do a new task. This is new and neither the cell or the DNA have any history with it. Somehow it has to fit in, not only in terms of placement, but it also might need logistical support from transport proteins that may not even exist. The middle aspect of evolution is how we go from the genetic change to selective advantage.

 

The analogy is the genetics is the CEO of a corporation. He has is a new idea. The genetic ideas goes down the chain of command. Evolution skips from the CEO to plotting sales. This is all true but it does not tell about all the proteins in the trenches who make it all happen.

[Biochemist]

There is a misunderstanding, that there are only two possible positions when it comes to evolution. Either you are for it or you are a creationist.

Hmmm. Given that there is a reasonably wide breadth of opinion on lots of evolutionary elements and that there are at least a dozen different views that accept the intervention of God, this strikes me as a little narrow. I have several (maybe even lots) of Christian friends that think evolution occurred by the generally accepted mutative model. What are they? Probably a lot of them think it couldn't have happened without divine intervention becasue the odds are so terrible. In fact, I used to be one of those (before I began to reject mutation-driven speciation). What position is that??

[Moontanman]

Hmmm. Given that there is a reasonably wide breadth of opinion on lots of evolutionary elements and that there are at least a dozen different views that accept the intervention of God, this strikes me as a little narrow. I have several (maybe even lots) of Christian friends that think evolution occurred by the generally accepted mutative model. What are they? Probably a lot of them think it couldn't have happened without divine intervention becasue the odds are so terrible. In fact, I used to be one of those (before I began to reject mutation-driven speciation). What position is that??

 

I am very curious, I have followed this thread for a while but don't pretend to understand exactly what is being said from your end so please explain to me exactly what does drive speciation? Don't bother with the details, where does the change come from?

[Essay]

Evolution skips from the CEO to plotting sales. This is all true but it does not tell about all the proteins in the trenches who make it all happen.

I'm no expert (but I did study at a Holiday Inn ;) ), but I think evolution theory incorporates all of that middle ground of proteins, regulation, timing, etc.

Notice that this leads to a lot more complexity and potential for variation than the normal view of CEO jumping straight to sales.

===

 

Your characterization of the process by which a gene finds its proper expression, "This [gene] is new and neither the cell or the DNA have any history with it. Somehow it has to fit in, not only in terms of placement, but it also might need logistical support from transport proteins that may not even exist," reveals a normal misunderstanding of evolution; but there is no unknown "middle ground."

 

Today's transport (& regulatory) proteins may not have existed when the gene mutated, but something was there that made that mutation workable (or neutral), and in some helpful way eventually. It may have been competely unrelated to the previous function of the gene, or it may have improved on the previous function--under certain conditions.

What a gene expresses (& how much + when) doesn't need any more direction as to how or where to "fit in" than do the genes themselves. A random collection of gene products will undergo natural selection, just as will a random collection of gene mutations (or outward, phenotypic expressions).

 

If a particular new gene (mutant) product will only become functional by co-opting or highjacking some intermediate from a different metabolic pathway, you wouldn't say that the gene must have" known" that the particular intermediate would be available, would you?

[Biochemist]

I am very curious, I have followed this thread for a while but don't pretend to understand exactly what is being said from your end so please explain to me exactly what does drive speciation? Don't bother with the details, where does the change come from?

I think the data better supports that DNA pre-codes for DNA changes. I suggest that speciation is not because mutations alter DNA serially, and then express, and then are selected. It is because the parent species has a propensity to alter itself into the daughter species. This essentially puts all of the code for the common ancestry into the first life form. A little tough to accept, but I think this is the most consistent with the extant data. It does (certainly) make the abiogenesis process that nuch more difficult, but it is what it is.

 

I ran a whole thread on this topic a couple years. The title was something like "statistical/probabilisitic issues with speciation".

[Moontanman]

I think the data better supports that DNA pre-codes for DNA changes. I suggest that speciation is not because mutations alter DNA serially, and then express, and then are selected. It is because the parent species has a propensity to alter itself into the daughter species. This essentially puts all of the code for the common ancestry into the first life form. A little tough to accept, but I think this is the most consistent with the extant data. It does (certainly) make the abiogenesis process that nuch more difficult, but it is what it is.

 

I ran a whole thread on this topic a couple years. The title was something like "statistical/probabilisitic issues with speciation".

 

Ok, where does this precode come from? I am completely comfortable with current theory of abiogenesis and it certainly does not allow for the presetting of genes for modern species in the original genome so where would your preset genes come from?

[Pyrotex]

...For example, say we have a new gene forming on the DNA that has the potential to do a new task. This is new and neither the cell or the DNA have any history with it. ....

It would sure make these conversations easier if you would find a simple book on evolution and genetics and just read it.

 

Anyway, genes are NOT associated with "tasks" or "processes" or "functions" or even bodily structures. Genes are associated with chemistry. Typically, a gene is associated with specifying an amino acid in a protein or enzyme. When the DNA is scanned within the cell, this process builds a protein or enzyme.

 

So, if a new gene is inserted into DNA, you do NOT get a "task" or "order" that can't be passed down from CEO to mailroom clerk. What you DO get is a protein with an extra amino acid in it. This will cause the protein to bend and twist into a different shape. Maybe very different, maybe only subtly different. The presence of this new protein may kill the host animal or may do nothing or may change its, say, eye color.

[CraigD]

Anyway, genes are NOT associated with "tasks" or "processes" or "functions" or even bodily structures. Genes are associated with chemistry. Typically, a gene is associated with specifying an amino acid in a protein or enzyme. When the DNA is scanned within the cell, this process builds a protein or enzyme.

I agree with Pyro’s general statement that individual genes “are associated with chemistry”, not much more complex biological functions. However, that a gene specifies a single amino acid is incorrect.

 

The DNA/RNA structure that codes for a single amino acid is the codon, and consists of exactly 3 base pairs. There are exactly 64 codons, some of which code for the same amino acid, and 3 codons that don’t code for an amino acid, but rather signal the transcription “factory” involved in expressing proteins to stop.

 

By modern microbiological definition, a gene specifies an entire protein, which may consist of hundreds of amino acid subunits. In addition to the coding region of a gene – its exons – eukaryotic genes contain non-coding segments – introns – and other regions that don’t encode proteins, but rather aid transcription factors in locating the gene, and are generally considered part of the gene.

[Pyrotex]

I agree with Pyro’s general statement that individual genes “are associated with chemistry”, not much more complex biological functions. However, that a gene specifies a single amino acid is incorrect....

I stand corrected. Thanks!!! :hihi: :) :)