100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Creation vs. Evolution. | |
|---|---|
|
|
 ... solves the big problems ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In any case the problem with DNA lengthening is described by historic cases where interspecies breeding was successful in producing viable offspring. DNA can be lengthened or shortened by this process and explains why humans have one less DNA strand than the other Great Apes.
From Wiki: Chromosomal polymorphism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search In genetics, chromosomal polymorphism is a condition where one species contains members with varying chromosome counts or shapes. Polymorphism is a general concept in biology where more than one version of a trait is present in a population. In some cases of differing counts, the difference in chromosome counts is the result of a single chromosome undergoing fission, where it splits into two smaller chromosomes, or two undergoing fusion, where two chromosomes join to form one. This condition has been detected in many species. Trichomycterus davisi, for example, is an extreme case where the polymorphism was present within a single chimeric individual.[1] It has also been studied in alfalfa,[2] shrews,[3] Brazilian rodents,[4] and an enormous variety of other animals and plants.[5] In one instance it has been found in a human.[6] Another process resulting in differing chromosomal counts is polyploidy. This results in cells which contain multiple copies of complete chromosome sets. Possessing chromosomes of varying shapes is generally the result of a chromosomal translocation or chromosomal inversion. In a translocation, genetic material is transferred from one chromosome to another, either symmetrically or asymmetrically (a Robertsonian translocation). In an inversion, a segment of a chromosome is flipped end-for-end. Implications for speciation All forms of chromosomal polymorphism can be viewed as a step towards speciation. Polymorphisms will generally result in a level of reduced fertility, because some gametes from one parent cannot successfully combine with all gametes of the other parent. However, when both parents contain matching chromosomal patterns, this obstacle does not occur. Further mutations in one group will not flow as rapidly into the other group as they do within the group in which it originally occurred. Further mutations can also cause absolute infertility. If an interbreeding population contains one group in which (for example) chromosomes A and B have fused, and another population in which chromosomes B and C have fused, both populations will be able to interbreed with the parent population. However, the two subpopulations will not be able to breed successfully with each other if the doubling of chromosome B is fatal. Similar difficulties will occur for incompatible translocations of material. References ^ Borin, Luciana Andreia; Isabel Cristina Martins-Santos (September 2000). "Intra-individual numerical chromosomal polymorphism in Trichomycterus davisi (Siluriformes, Trichomycteridae) from the Iguaçu River basin in Brazil". Genet. Mol. Biol. 23 (3). doi:10.1590/S1415-47572000000300018. Retrieved 2006-12-08. ^ Bauchan,, Gary R.; T. Austin Campbell, and M. Azhar Hossain (1 July 2002). "Chromosomal Polymorphism as Detected by C-Banding Patterns in Chilean Alfalfa Germplasm". Crop Sci. 42 (4): 1291–7. doi:10.2135/cropsci2002.1291. ^ Elrod DA, Beck ML, Kennedy ML (October 1996). "Chromosomal variation in the southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)". Genetica 98 (2): 199–203. doi:10.1007/BF00121367. PMID 8999000. ^ Thales Renato O. de Freitas (1997). "Chromosome polymorphism in Ctenomys minutus (Rodentia-Octodontidae)". Braz. J. Genet. 20 (1). doi:10.1590/S0100-84551997000100001. ^ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=chromosomal+polymorphism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search ^ Understanding Genetics:The 44 Chromosome Man And What He Reveals About Our Genetic Past |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the rare cases when mutation has been favourable, it has not involved any significant increases to the length of the DNA. You know everything there is to know about all mutations that have ever occurred? Or did you mean to qualify that statement in some way? Are you talking about specific mutations that we have studied and documented? He's talking about observed mutations. The scientific method does require "observation", correct? Or are scientists allowed to just make up cool stuff and pretend it happened? Juxtaposing those two questions, linked with 'or', implies to me a false dilemna. Scientists can extrapolate, and they can make reasoned inferences. This does require some observations, but it does not require that every single facet of a process is directly observed. But you don't need to see a bullet in flight to 'observe' someone shooting a can off a wall. (Though admittedly a radical skeptic might say: Are you sure the bullet didn't miss, and something else knocked the can off the wall? This possibility doesn't make it unreasonable to conclude the person who fired a gun directed at the can almost certainly did shoot the can off the wall.) So how do we know a mutation has happened? It's been over a decade since I've formally studied this, so my knowledge is both rusty and outdated. In the old days, people would have some evidence that a mutation might have happened (such as new physical qualities not previous observed), and go hunting for it. They might breed the organism, and look for linking of that quality to other known genes, and help them narrow down which chromosome its on. I don't know the details beyond that. My understanding is that we can also draw inferences regarding when mutations may happen by comparing sequenced genomes of closely related species. It seems like we are about to enter a new age of cheap sequencing, in which sequencing a genome may be as easy as tagging a migratory bird or growing bacteria in a petri dish. This will eventually give us a massive database of genetic information. We may develop new ways of analyzing this data which can tell us a great deal about the pace and timing of mutation. This may or may not be 'observation' depending on your definition. To take the strictest view of 'observation', we would actually have to catch the exact moment of the mutation and image the dna at the atomic level. This has never happened, and quit possibly never will. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In any case the problem with DNA lengthening is described by historic cases where interspecies breeding was successful in producing viable offspring. DNA can be lengthened or shortened by this process and explains why humans have one less DNA strand than the other Great Apes. From Wiki: Chromosomal polymorphism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search In genetics, chromosomal polymorphism is a condition where one species contains members with varying chromosome counts or shapes. Polymorphism is a general concept in biology where more than one version of a trait is present in a population. In some cases of differing counts, the difference in chromosome counts is the result of a single chromosome undergoing fission, where it splits into two smaller chromosomes, or two undergoing fusion, where two chromosomes join to form one. This condition has been detected in many species. Trichomycterus davisi, for example, is an extreme case where the polymorphism was present within a single chimeric individual.[1] It has also been studied in alfalfa,[2] shrews,[3] Brazilian rodents,[4] and an enormous variety of other animals and plants.[5] In one instance it has been found in a human.[6] Another process resulting in differing chromosomal counts is polyploidy. This results in cells which contain multiple copies of complete chromosome sets. Possessing chromosomes of varying shapes is generally the result of a chromosomal translocation or chromosomal inversion. In a translocation, genetic material is transferred from one chromosome to another, either symmetrically or asymmetrically (a Robertsonian translocation). In an inversion, a segment of a chromosome is flipped end-for-end. Implications for speciation All forms of chromosomal polymorphism can be viewed as a step towards speciation. Polymorphisms will generally result in a level of reduced fertility, because some gametes from one parent cannot successfully combine with all gametes of the other parent. However, when both parents contain matching chromosomal patterns, this obstacle does not occur. Further mutations in one group will not flow as rapidly into the other group as they do within the group in which it originally occurred. Further mutations can also cause absolute infertility. If an interbreeding population contains one group in which (for example) chromosomes A and B have fused, and another population in which chromosomes B and C have fused, both populations will be able to interbreed with the parent population. However, the two subpopulations will not be able to breed successfully with each other if the doubling of chromosome B is fatal. Similar difficulties will occur for incompatible translocations of material. References ^ Borin, Luciana Andreia; Isabel Cristina Martins-Santos (September 2000). "Intra-individual numerical chromosomal polymorphism in Trichomycterus davisi (Siluriformes, Trichomycteridae) from the Iguaçu River basin in Brazil". Genet. Mol. Biol. 23 (3). doi:10.1590/S1415-47572000000300018. Retrieved 2006-12-08. ^ Bauchan,, Gary R.; T. Austin Campbell, and M. Azhar Hossain (1 July 2002). "Chromosomal Polymorphism as Detected by C-Banding Patterns in Chilean Alfalfa Germplasm". Crop Sci. 42 (4): 1291–7. doi:10.2135/cropsci2002.1291. ^ Elrod DA, Beck ML, Kennedy ML (October 1996). "Chromosomal variation in the southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)". Genetica 98 (2): 199–203. doi:10.1007/BF00121367. PMID 8999000. ^ Thales Renato O. de Freitas (1997). "Chromosome polymorphism in Ctenomys minutus (Rodentia-Octodontidae)". Braz. J. Genet. 20 (1). doi:10.1590/S0100-84551997000100001. ^ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=chromosomal+polymorphism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search ^ Understanding Genetics:The 44 Chromosome Man And What He Reveals About Our Genetic Past && thank you too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All forms of chromosomal polymorphism can be viewed as a step towards speciation. Polymorphisms will generally result in a level of reduced fertility, because some gametes from one parent cannot successfully combine with all gametes of the other parent. However, when both parents contain matching chromosomal patterns, this obstacle does not occur. Further mutations in one group will not flow as rapidly into the other group as they do within the group in which it originally occurred. I already did acknowledge that DNA size mutations do occur in nature. I also acknowledged that beneficial mutations do occasionally occur. Generally mutations are neutral or damaging, have you got any examples where polymorphism or any other type of mutation caused BOTH an increase in DNA size and beneficial improvements in the organism without damaging other aspects of the organism? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All forms of chromosomal polymorphism can be viewed as a step towards speciation. Polymorphisms will generally result in a level of reduced fertility, because some gametes from one parent cannot successfully combine with all gametes of the other parent. However, when both parents contain matching chromosomal patterns, this obstacle does not occur. Further mutations in one group will not flow as rapidly into the other group as they do within the group in which it originally occurred. I already did acknowledge that DNA size mutations do occur in nature. I also acknowledged that beneficial mutations do occasionally occur. Generally mutations are neutral or damaging, have you got any examples where polymorphism or any other type of mutation caused BOTH an increase in DNA size and beneficial improvements in the organism without damaging other aspects of the organism? Perhaps I misread your posts. I had the impression you were acknowledging the rarely beneficial effect of mutation and stating that it cannot cause DNA lengthening. Over the long run I think the effects of mutation are very beneficial in allowing creatures to fill niches as discovered by Darwin and the Finches. However, it appears chromosomal polymorphism would be a better explanation for DNA lengthening, which is not a mutation... at least not a random one. There are numerous examples but the best one is that of the human. In this case the two chromosomes bound together instead of splitting leaving the telomeres at the intersection intact. There is some irony in the reduced number of chromosomes going to the most complex creature. Again, from Wiki: Humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than other apes, since the ape chromosomes 2 and 4 have fused into a large chromosome (which contains remnants of the centromere and telomeres of the ancestral 2 and 4) in humans.[3] Having different numbers of chromosomes is not an absolute barrier to hybridization. Similar mismatches are relatively common in existing species, a phenomenon known as chromosomal polymorphism. The genetic structure of all the great apes is similar. Chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, and X are structurally the same in all great apes. 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 20 match between gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Chimps and humans match on 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7–10, 12, 16, and Y as well. Some older references will include Y as a match between gorillas, chimps, and humans, but chimpanzees (including bonobos) and humans have recently been found to share a large transposition from chromosome 1 to Y that is not found in other apes.[4] This level of chromosomal similarity is roughly equivalent to that found in equines. Interfertility of horses and donkeys is common, although sterility of the offspring (mules) is nearly universal (around 60 exceptions have been recorded in the whole of human history[citation needed]). Similar complexities and prevalent sterility pertain to horse-zebra hybrids, or zorses, whose chromosomal disparity is very wide, with horses typically having 32 chromosome pairs and zebras possessing between 44 and 62 depending upon species. In a direct parallel to the chimp-human case, the Przewalski horse (Equus przewalskii) with 33 chromosome pairs, and the domestic horse (E. caballus) with 32 chromosome pairs, have been found to be interfertile, and produce semi-fertile offspring, where male hybrids can breed with female domestic horses.[5]). In the 1920s the Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/non human ape hybrid. At first working with human sperm and chimpanzee females, none of his attempts created a pregnancy.[6] In 1929 he organized a set of experiments involving nonhuman ape sperm and human volunteers, but was delayed by the death of his last orangutan.[6] The next year he fell under political criticism from the Soviet government and was sentenced to exile in the Kazakh SSR; he worked there at the Kazakh Veterinary-Zootechnical Institute and died of a stroke two years later. In 1977, researcher J. Michael Bedford[7] discovered that human sperm could penetrate the protective outer membranes of a gibbon egg. Bedford's paper also stated that human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of non-hominoid primates (baboon, rhesus monkey, and squirrel monkey), concluding that although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. In 2006, research suggested that after the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees diverged into two distinct lineages, inter-lineage sex was still sufficiently common that it produced fertile hybrids for around 1.2 million years after the initial split.[8]... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Mon 05/07/12 12:36 AM
|
|
Depending on your standard of evidence, you can say that we've observed millions of beneficial mutations (in the same way that one can observe hundreds of picasso paintings...having never seen picasso paint), or that we have observed a handful, or that we may never observe a mutation. No you can assume you have observed millions of mutations if you assume evolution is correct. With current technology it would be easy to observe an increase in the size of the genome within a species. This would show as an identical chromosomal pattern except for the one organism or sub-species showing a longer chromosone, or duplicated chromosone. If this longer genome is proven to be beneficial, and could occur in nature, then you would have a point. Fair enough, and I've enjoyed the quality of your subsequent posts Thanks, and I appreciate your commitment to logic. I am new to all of this biological science but my strength is basic logic, which is normally lacking on forums. See, I'm not sure that they did "show an increase from a single cell to arthropod". It's quite possible that complex precursors to arthropods had been quietly evolving for a long time, and simply not leaving much evidence behind of their existence. It's not surprising to me that there would be a rapid uptake of hard shells among whatever illusive, soft bodied species existed. I wasn't inferring that it was immediate, my point was that over a short period of time, during the Cambrian explosion, it would have been essential to have many transitions and many Beneficial Increases to the Genome size (BIG), to create an arthropod from a single cell organism, no matter which route the "evolving" took. How likely is this? Its only very likely if looked through the eyes of an evolutionist, a more empirical approach would acknowledge that the lack of proof for Beneficial Increases to the Genome (BIG) makes that jump unlikely through evolving. To be confident in a hypothesis that assumes compacting many BIGs into a small time frame when we don't even know if BIGs ever work does not sound logical to me. I can see why one might see this as the essence of the creation/evolution debate, but I disagree that it is. It seems to me that the creation/evolution debate is multifaceted. No single facet strikes me as the 'essence' of it. For too many people, the real essence of the debate (for them) is whether or not to accept the bible as an absolute authority. True , it is multi-faceted. I have been concentrating on evolution as a biological possibility,and unlike other creationists I do agree with micro-evolution and even macro-evolution within the gene pool of a species, therefore my particular focus is this increasing complexity claimed by evolutionists. To me this is the essence of evolution as a biological possiblitity. However you are correct, even if evolution is proved to be a viable theory, when applying it to history and the fossil record there are other points of contention that I have along with other creationists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like 2 and 4 of the human set is your smoking gun! It is what separates us from the apes. That would seem like a big improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Mon 05/07/12 12:52 AM
|
|
Seems like 2 and 4 of the human set is your smoking gun! It is what separates us from the apes. That would seem like a big improvement. I enjoyed the comeback , which makes sense based on my wording of what would be required. However I feel that there would have to be a greater match to start with because us creationists assume that all creatures were created in a similar manner, with matching sections of the genome. Any evidence would have to involve identical chromosonal patterns through most of the genome, rather than the major differences observed between the human and ape genomes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Mon 05/07/12 01:15 AM
|
|
Perhaps I misread your posts. I had the impression you were acknowledging the rarely beneficial effect of mutation and stating that it cannot cause DNA lengthening. No, I was acknowledging both processes, yet saying they are not yet found together. An earlier post of mine mentioned insertions and duplications as acknowledgment that the genome size does increase through mutation. Over the long run I think the effects of mutation are very beneficial in allowing creatures to fill niches as discovered by Darwin and the Finches Thats just natural variation and selection that causes the new sub-species. ie the chromosomal pattern in both sub-species remains the same. Many creationists would disagree with me, but I believe whole new species that look completely different can be created merely through variation and natural selection. The variation coming from the parents gene pool, yet having different combinations of the parent's genes. The reason I believe this is that the number of possible combinations between 32 000 genes of the male and 32 000 genes of the female are so staggering to our finite minds that it may as well be infinite. With so many varieties available, many species are already available within the gene pool of a species. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like 2 and 4 of the human set is your smoking gun! It is what separates us from the apes. That would seem like a big improvement. I enjoyed the comeback , which makes sense based on my wording of what would be required. However I feel that there would have to be a greater match to start with because us creationists assume that all creatures were created in a similar manner, with matching sections of the genome. Any evidence would have to involve identical chromosonal patterns through most of the genome, rather than the major differences observed between the human and ape genomes. Your statement confuses me. There are no major differences between human and ape DNA and the major identical genomes are listed in my post. The 2 and 4 strands are connected by telomeres which is direct evidence that a lengthening occurred leaving the telomeres behind as useless fluff. What could possibly be better evidence than that? The discussion provided cites examples of how it works and claims to have numerous examples, several of which are quoted. Are you making the claim that the human DNA strand which is extra long and connected in the middle with a telomere with the two ends that match great ape DNA strands was part of intelligent design and not part of interspecies breeding some one million plus years ago? If so, that's not very logical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, the question asks 'which is right': Modern science, or the foundation mythology of an ancient nation, included in an anthology of works collated under the auspices of a Roman Emperor, in order to preserve public order within his realm?
That's a tough one. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Mon 05/07/12 03:53 AM
|
|
Your statement confuses me. There are no major differences between human and ape DNA and the major identical genomes are listed in my post. The 2 and 4 strands are connected by telomeres which is direct evidence that a lengthening occurred leaving the telomeres behind as useless fluff. What could possibly be better evidence than that? The discussion provided cites examples of how it works and claims to have numerous examples, several of which are quoted. There are many many slight differences, nearly every chromosone of a human has differences to an ape's. Most species have mutations, these are rarely beneficial. You seem to be pointing to a lengthening mutation in human DNA as the most significant variation between the two species, when there are many other DNA differences in many other chromosones that show no signs of mutation. Have you got any proof that the mutation involving "useless fluff" is the reason behind mankind's evolving, or do you think the differences between the species could be found in the many other slight DNA differences between man and ape? Are you making the claim that the human DNA strand which is extra long and connected in the middle with a telomere with the two ends that match great ape DNA strands was part of intelligent design and not part of interspecies breeding some one million plus years ago? If so, that's not very logical My belief is that intelligent design created the uniqueness that is human. The human telomere mutations are not intelligent design, its flaws that have occurred since. If they are not beneficial, both science and creation could admit that its newer flaws that occurred, and have been passed on genetically. The reason the DNA is so similar is because God created the creatures so similar, using the same effective pattern every time. The more similar the creation, the more similar the DNA. Empirically there is nothing in evidence that would favour evolution over creation. Nothing you see in DNA analysis contradicts creation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your statement confuses me. There are no major differences between human and ape DNA and the major identical genomes are listed in my post. The 2 and 4 strands are connected by telomeres which is direct evidence that a lengthening occurred leaving the telomeres behind as useless fluff. What could possibly be better evidence than that? The discussion provided cites examples of how it works and claims to have numerous examples, several of which are quoted. There are many many slight differences, nearly every chromosone of a human has differences to an ape's. Most species have mutations, these are rarely beneficial. You seem to be pointing to a lengthening mutation in human DNA as the most significant variation between the two species, when there are many other DNA differences in many other chromosones that show no signs of mutation. Have you got any proof that the mutation involving "useless fluff" is the reason behind mankind's evolving, or do you think the differences between the species could be found in the many other slight DNA differences between man and ape? Are you making the claim that the human DNA strand which is extra long and connected in the middle with a telomere with the two ends that match great ape DNA strands was part of intelligent design and not part of interspecies breeding some one million plus years ago? If so, that's not very logical My belief is that intelligent design created the uniqueness that is human. The human telomere mutations are not intelligent design, its flaws that have occurred since. If they are not beneficial, both science and creation could admit that its newer flaws that occurred, and have been passed on genetically. The reason the DNA is so similar is because God created the creatures so similar, using the same effective pattern every time. The more similar the creation, the more similar the DNA. Empirically there is nothing in evidence that would favour evolution over creation. Nothing you see in DNA analysis contradicts creation. I've looked into this more, and the telomers could very well have a created function. So I'm not sure now whether they are created or mutated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your statement confuses me. There are no major differences between human and ape DNA and the major identical genomes are listed in my post. The 2 and 4 strands are connected by telomeres which is direct evidence that a lengthening occurred leaving the telomeres behind as useless fluff. What could possibly be better evidence than that? The discussion provided cites examples of how it works and claims to have numerous examples, several of which are quoted. Have you got any proof that the mutation involving "useless fluff" is the reason behind mankind's evolving, or do you think the differences between the species could be found in the many other slight DNA differences between man and ape? Are you making the claim that the human DNA strand which is extra long and connected in the middle with a telomere with the two ends that match great ape DNA strands was part of intelligent design and not part of interspecies breeding some one million plus years ago? If so, that's not very logical My belief is that intelligent design created the uniqueness that is human. The human telomere mutations are not intelligent design, its flaws that have occurred since. If they are not beneficial, both science and creation could admit that its newer flaws that occurred, and have been passed on genetically. The reason the DNA is so similar is because God created the creatures so similar, using the same effective pattern every time. The more similar the creation, the more similar the DNA. Empirically there is nothing in evidence that would favour evolution over creation. Nothing you see in DNA analysis contradicts creation. I've looked into this more, and the telomers could very well have a created function. So I'm not sure now whether they are created or mutated. LOL Telomeres have a really specific function! They keep the ends of the DNA chain from unraveling like a knot. They lose one "link" when the cell divides giving an effective lifespan to the organism. If you find a telomere in the middle of a chromosome, you have found positive proof that the strand once was two strands that joined. In the case of the Great Apes, two strands joined to make one; albeit a long one. You ask for proof and get it. Now you want to force the evidence to fit an alternate theory? Why can't you just accept that evolution is no different from math and physics and believe that it is God's way of making things happen? Telomeres having a "created" function? They slowly disappear until the creature dies. They keep the DNA from unraveling. That's a pretty specific purpose unless they are found in the middle of the DNA strand at which case they do nothing but take up space. There is a LOT of work going on artificially lengthen telomeres for the purpose of increasing lifespan. A major obstacle is that allowing cells to forever divide is a recipe for cancer. As the reactions slowly (actually extremely rapidly in human history terms) become known, the proper combination of enzymes and drugs will probably appear to lengthen human life ... perhaps indefinitely and perhaps soon. I think you would find the following related topic interesting. The new field is called synthetic biology. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5880436-man-creates-worlds-first-synthetic-life |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Mon 05/07/12 09:10 AM
|
|
LOL Telomeres have a really specific function! They keep the ends of the DNA chain from unraveling like a knot. They lose one "link" when the cell divides giving an effective lifespan to the organism. If you find a telomere in the middle of a chromosome, you have found positive proof that the strand once was two strands that joined. In the case of the Great Apes, two strands joined to make one; albeit a long one. You ask for proof and get it. Now you want to force the evidence to fit an alternate theory? Why can't you just accept that evolution is no different from math and physics and believe that it is God's way of making things happen? Telomeres having a "created" function? They slowly disappear until the creature dies. They keep the DNA from unraveling. That's a pretty specific purpose unless they are found in the middle of the DNA strand at which case they do nothing but take up space. There is a LOT of work going on artificially lengthen telomeres for the purpose of increasing lifespan. A major obstacle is that allowing cells to forever divide is a recipe for cancer. As the reactions slowly (actually extremely rapidly in human history terms) become known, the proper combination of enzymes and drugs will probably appear to lengthen human life ... perhaps indefinitely and perhaps soon. I think you would find the following related topic interesting. The new field is called synthetic biology. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5880436-man-creates-worlds-first-synthetic-life I'm not getting your point here. I don't think you are getting into the creationists mindset here. Unless beneficial aspects of the dna are proven to be more recent than the establishment of a species, we assume they were created with those benefits, just like you would assume any benefits have evolved. Thus I don't see any contradiction between the information in your post and the creationist position. I am looking for proof of beneficial mutations that increase the complexity of the genome. To distinguish between creation and mutation you have to show that the mutation occurred later. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL Telomeres have a really specific function! They keep the ends of the DNA chain from unraveling like a knot. They lose one "link" when the cell divides giving an effective lifespan to the organism. If you find a telomere in the middle of a chromosome, you have found positive proof that the strand once was two strands that joined. In the case of the Great Apes, two strands joined to make one; albeit a long one. You ask for proof and get it. Now you want to force the evidence to fit an alternate theory? Why can't you just accept that evolution is no different from math and physics and believe that it is God's way of making things happen? Telomeres having a "created" function? They slowly disappear until the creature dies. They keep the DNA from unraveling. That's a pretty specific purpose unless they are found in the middle of the DNA strand at which case they do nothing but take up space. There is a LOT of work going on artificially lengthen telomeres for the purpose of increasing lifespan. A major obstacle is that allowing cells to forever divide is a recipe for cancer. As the reactions slowly (actually extremely rapidly in human history terms) become known, the proper combination of enzymes and drugs will probably appear to lengthen human life ... perhaps indefinitely and perhaps soon. I think you would find the following related topic interesting. The new field is called synthetic biology. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5880436-man-creates-worlds-first-synthetic-life I'm not getting your point here. I don't think you are getting into the creationists mindset here. Unless beneficial aspects of the dna are proven to be more recent than the establishment of a species, we assume they were created with those benefits, just like you would assume any benefits have evolved. Thus I don't see any contradiction between the information in your post and the creationist position. I am looking for proof of beneficial mutations that increase the complexity of the genome. To distinguish between creation and mutation you have to show that the mutation occurred later. Well, I certainly think I see the point you are trying to make but I think you are distorting the facts to fit your theory. I take it that your position is that the human genome was "created" intact in it's present form. That theory does not hold up to scientific observation. You have mixed concepts of mutation and species creation with a limited view of how genomes are formed with great emphasis on the inability for DNA to lengthen by mutation. That is simply not how evolution works although it is PART of how evolution works. Cross breeding between similar species has gone on pretty much from the beginning. The process is described above in the Wiki text. The process can lengthen, shorten, or add DNA strands to the genome and if the offspring are viable, they can be carried on to future generations. The human genome has exactly that pattern and a telomere in the middle of a a chromosome is positive proof of it. For you to think the creator made human DNA with a telomere stuck in the middle as part of a "purpose" is kinda silly IMHO. It pretty much only has one way of getting there and that is sex with another species. Referring to telomere "mutation" is incorrect terminology both literally and functionally. From my experience there are different views of creation and not one view that defines "creationism". There are snippets of Neanderthal genome in human DNA depending upon what part of the World you are from. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703686304575228380902037988.html Further back in time, there were lots of species of hominid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I certainly think I see the point you are trying to make but I think you are distorting the facts to fit your theory. I take it that your position is that the human genome was "created" intact in it's present form. That theory does not hold up to scientific observation. Yes this is what I believe, all life-forms were created intact in their present forms. The only changes over time are related to mutations which are nearly always damaging or neutral, and rarely beneficial. And changes to the allele frequencies can affect species, whereby the combinations of genes within a species' gene pool will evolve depending on natural selection, to give the best combination for a certain situation. You have mixed concepts of mutation and species creation with a limited view of how genomes are formed with great emphasis on the inability for DNA to lengthen by mutation. That is simply not how evolution works although it is PART of how evolution works. Evolution requires lengthening DNA processes because evolution claims that we are all evolved from primitive single cell organisms. Thus to believe in evolution as an explanation for the appearance of more complex DNA organisms greater than one cell, REQUIRES beneficial increases to the genome size. I also believe in evolution, but not as an explanation for the appearance of modern life forms, so my view does not require beneficial increases to the genome size, your view does. The evidence is lacking, nothing you have said so far comes close to showing these beneficial increases. Cross breeding between similar species has gone on pretty much from the beginning. The process is described above in the Wiki text. The process can lengthen, shorten, or add DNA strands to the genome and if the offspring are viable, they can be carried on to future generations. I read your posts, and the emphasis seemed to be the inability to succesfully crossbreed when mutations and different breeds are involved. You have not yet posted one instance of succesfully crossbreeding that resulted in MORE FITNESS of the new sub-species. The chromosone pattern has to be nearly identical to interbreed succesfully, that is why interbreeding occurs with highly similar species and not very well. The human genome has exactly that pattern and a telomere in the middle of a a chromosome is positive proof of it. For you to think the creator made human DNA with a telomere stuck in the middle as part of a "purpose" is kinda silly IMHO. It pretty much only has one way of getting there and that is sex with another species. Referring to telomere "mutation" is incorrect terminology both literally and functionally. Before today I have never heard of telomere, I'm still learning and enjoying the process. Thanks for explaining to me, it seems obvious that the useful telomeres were created, and the non-functional telomere is a subsequent mutation. Nothing about telomeres seems to contradict the creationists position or prove beneficial increases to the genome size (as evolutionists require to explain the evolving of DNA complexity.) There are snippets of Neanderthal genome in human DNA depending upon what part of the World you are from. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703686304575228380902037988.html Further back in time, there were lots of species of hominid.. I completely agree about the variety of hominids. There have been many extinctions of many species and sub-species over the millenia. Generally the fossil record shows reducing numbers of species, and not increasing numbers of species, as your example of hominids indicates. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In any case the problem with DNA lengthening is described by historic cases where interspecies breeding was successful in producing viable offspring. DNA can be lengthened or shortened by this process and explains why humans have one less DNA strand than the other Great Apes. From Wiki: Chromosomal polymorphism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search In genetics, chromosomal polymorphism is a condition where one species contains members with varying chromosome counts or shapes. Polymorphism is a general concept in biology where more than one version of a trait is present in a population. In some cases of differing counts, the difference in chromosome counts is the result of a single chromosome undergoing fission, where it splits into two smaller chromosomes, or two undergoing fusion, where two chromosomes join to form one. This condition has been detected in many species. Trichomycterus davisi, for example, is an extreme case where the polymorphism was present within a single chimeric individual.[1] It has also been studied in alfalfa,[2] shrews,[3] Brazilian rodents,[4] and an enormous variety of other animals and plants.[5] In one instance it has been found in a human.[6] Another process resulting in differing chromosomal counts is polyploidy. This results in cells which contain multiple copies of complete chromosome sets. Possessing chromosomes of varying shapes is generally the result of a chromosomal translocation or chromosomal inversion. In a translocation, genetic material is transferred from one chromosome to another, either symmetrically or asymmetrically (a Robertsonian translocation). In an inversion, a segment of a chromosome is flipped end-for-end. Implications for speciation All forms of chromosomal polymorphism can be viewed as a step towards speciation. Polymorphisms will generally result in a level of reduced fertility, because some gametes from one parent cannot successfully combine with all gametes of the other parent. However, when both parents contain matching chromosomal patterns, this obstacle does not occur. Further mutations in one group will not flow as rapidly into the other group as they do within the group in which it originally occurred. Further mutations can also cause absolute infertility. If an interbreeding population contains one group in which (for example) chromosomes A and B have fused, and another population in which chromosomes B and C have fused, both populations will be able to interbreed with the parent population. However, the two subpopulations will not be able to breed successfully with each other if the doubling of chromosome B is fatal. Similar difficulties will occur for incompatible translocations of material. References ^ Borin, Luciana Andreia; Isabel Cristina Martins-Santos (September 2000). "Intra-individual numerical chromosomal polymorphism in Trichomycterus davisi (Siluriformes, Trichomycteridae) from the Iguaçu River basin in Brazil". Genet. Mol. Biol. 23 (3). doi:10.1590/S1415-47572000000300018. Retrieved 2006-12-08. ^ Bauchan,, Gary R.; T. Austin Campbell, and M. Azhar Hossain (1 July 2002). "Chromosomal Polymorphism as Detected by C-Banding Patterns in Chilean Alfalfa Germplasm". Crop Sci. 42 (4): 1291–7. doi:10.2135/cropsci2002.1291. ^ Elrod DA, Beck ML, Kennedy ML (October 1996). "Chromosomal variation in the southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)". Genetica 98 (2): 199–203. doi:10.1007/BF00121367. PMID 8999000. ^ Thales Renato O. de Freitas (1997). "Chromosome polymorphism in Ctenomys minutus (Rodentia-Octodontidae)". Braz. J. Genet. 20 (1). doi:10.1590/S0100-84551997000100001. ^ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=chromosomal+polymorphism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search ^ Understanding Genetics:The 44 Chromosome Man And What He Reveals About Our Genetic Past Going back to this post, you seem to be referring often to this post as some sort of proof of succesful interbreeding between species. This post of yours is actually saying the very opposite. It is saying that DNA can "morph", it can transform through mutation (NOT interbreeding). When this occurs it can cause problems with breeding between the "morphed" population and the non-morphed population. This whole post of yours highlights difficulties of interbreeding WITHIN a species due to mutation, and is not making your point in any form or manner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In any case the problem with DNA lengthening is described by historic cases where interspecies breeding was successful in producing viable offspring. DNA can be lengthened or shortened by this process and explains why humans have one less DNA strand than the other Great Apes. From Wiki: Chromosomal polymorphism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search In genetics, chromosomal polymorphism is a condition where one species contains members with varying chromosome counts or shapes. Polymorphism is a general concept in biology where more than one version of a trait is present in a population. In some cases of differing counts, the difference in chromosome counts is the result of a single chromosome undergoing fission, where it splits into two smaller chromosomes, or two undergoing fusion, where two chromosomes join to form one. This condition has been detected in many species. Trichomycterus davisi, for example, is an extreme case where the polymorphism was present within a single chimeric individual.[1] It has also been studied in alfalfa,[2] shrews,[3] Brazilian rodents,[4] and an enormous variety of other animals and plants.[5] In one instance it has been found in a human.[6] Another process resulting in differing chromosomal counts is polyploidy. This results in cells which contain multiple copies of complete chromosome sets. Possessing chromosomes of varying shapes is generally the result of a chromosomal translocation or chromosomal inversion. In a translocation, genetic material is transferred from one chromosome to another, either symmetrically or asymmetrically (a Robertsonian translocation). In an inversion, a segment of a chromosome is flipped end-for-end. Implications for speciation All forms of chromosomal polymorphism can be viewed as a step towards speciation. Polymorphisms will generally result in a level of reduced fertility, because some gametes from one parent cannot successfully combine with all gametes of the other parent. However, when both parents contain matching chromosomal patterns, this obstacle does not occur. Further mutations in one group will not flow as rapidly into the other group as they do within the group in which it originally occurred. Further mutations can also cause absolute infertility. If an interbreeding population contains one group in which (for example) chromosomes A and B have fused, and another population in which chromosomes B and C have fused, both populations will be able to interbreed with the parent population. However, the two subpopulations will not be able to breed successfully with each other if the doubling of chromosome B is fatal. Similar difficulties will occur for incompatible translocations of material. References ^ Borin, Luciana Andreia; Isabel Cristina Martins-Santos (September 2000). "Intra-individual numerical chromosomal polymorphism in Trichomycterus davisi (Siluriformes, Trichomycteridae) from the Iguaçu River basin in Brazil". Genet. Mol. Biol. 23 (3). doi:10.1590/S1415-47572000000300018. Retrieved 2006-12-08. ^ Bauchan,, Gary R.; T. Austin Campbell, and M. Azhar Hossain (1 July 2002). "Chromosomal Polymorphism as Detected by C-Banding Patterns in Chilean Alfalfa Germplasm". Crop Sci. 42 (4): 1291–7. doi:10.2135/cropsci2002.1291. ^ Elrod DA, Beck ML, Kennedy ML (October 1996). "Chromosomal variation in the southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)". Genetica 98 (2): 199–203. doi:10.1007/BF00121367. PMID 8999000. ^ Thales Renato O. de Freitas (1997). "Chromosome polymorphism in Ctenomys minutus (Rodentia-Octodontidae)". Braz. J. Genet. 20 (1). doi:10.1590/S0100-84551997000100001. ^ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=chromosomal+polymorphism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search ^ Understanding Genetics:The 44 Chromosome Man And What He Reveals About Our Genetic Past Going back to this post, you seem to be referring often to this post as some sort of proof of succesful interbreeding between species. This post of yours is actually saying the very opposite. It is saying that DNA can "morph", it can transform through mutation (NOT interbreeding). When this occurs it can cause problems with breeding between the "morphed" population and the non-morphed population. This whole post of yours highlights difficulties of interbreeding WITHIN a species due to mutation, and is not making your point in any form or manner. With all due respect, you do not understand the comments or the references. The telomeres are positive proof of the condition that you have predetermined cannot be proven, therefore your position states that your position is confirmed when in actuality, you simply don't understand the proof. You said that telomeres could have a creator purpose which is just silly. Your understanding of polymorphism in the context of chromosomal polymorphism is completely opposite of reality. I respect your beliefs even if you want to force false information into your version of "proof". Your lack of understanding of these processes does not translate into my lack of understanding of these processes. You are using intellectual dishonesty to try to make a point and all you are really doing is showing that you do not understand the topic sufficiently to debate on a scientific level. If you go back and carefully reread your statements in this thread, you change your facts to match your theory. You change your understanding of facts presented to you to match your theory. When all else fails, you state that I am not making a point that you don't understand because it doesn't fit your theory. If you are just learning about telomeres, you are a newbie to the topic by any standard. As my father used to say, "No one ever learned anything with their mouth open." Try rereading my posts again with an open mind. You might learn something. I don't have any axes to grind on this topic. You obviously do. I used the Wiki post because it is simple and well written and, to my knowledge, nothing in it is scientifically disputed. I suggest you go back and reread the reason great apes have one more chromosome than we do. It's not that complicated. Neither is the reason our DNA has snippets of Neanderthal. |
|
|
|
|
