My scree name is Cimber, and I am glad you are going to get these articles. You are showing a lot of initiative. Be warned however that these kind of journal articles are not what you used to reading. It uses highly scientific terms and if you need any help understanding what it says, be sure to ask me since I have to read these sort of things and write these on a day to day basis.

Belief in the theory of evolution isn't needed for medications to be developed.

Sorry Cimber for referring to you as Climber. I have been doing that to you for "yonks" -- perhaps this could be an interesting insight into how one fails to actually see what is in front of a person's eyes all along. Maybe a psychology student could use something like that in their studies?

Thanks for your offer of help in understanding what's written there. I'll probably have to take you up on that. But as I wrote earlier -- beware of the god of cyberspace.
Karlis

No because animal husbandry IS NOT THE SAME AS HYBRIDISATION!
IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU!

Look at the way you blast and rage over something so flipping stupid as a hybrid. Quit being so esoteric in your language - this is not your biology class - it's a discussion group. Define your flipping terms instead of splitting hairs!

Hybrid (biology), the offspring resulting from cross-breeding of different plants or animals.
from Wik.

You haven't proved a darn thing. Take it to one of your local professors of Biology at whatever college you're nearest to, if you wish. See what they say and have them laugh in your face in the process.

"In a whole array of clinical and basic science challenges, evolutionary biology is turning out to be crucial."

"Evolution is also the origin of apparent anatomical anomalies such as the vulnerabilities of the lower back. Biochemistry courses cover bilirubin metabolism, but an evolutionary explanation for why bilirubin is synthesized at all is new: It is an efficient free-radical scavenger. Pharmacology emphasizes individual variation in genes encoding cytochrome P450s, but their evolutionary origins in processing dietary toxins are just being fully appreciated. In physiology, fetal nutritional stress appears to flip an evolved switch that sets the body into a state that protects against starvation. When these individuals encounter modern diets, they respond with the deadly metabolic syndrome of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes."

"The triumphs of molecular biology call attention to evolutionary factors responsible for certain genetic diseases. The textbook example is sickle-cell disease, whose carriers are resistant to malaria. Similar protection against infection has been hypothesized for other disorders. Which aspects of the modern environment are pathogenic? We need to find out. Increases in breast cancer have been attributed to hormone exposure in modern women who have four times as many menstrual cycles as women in cultures without birth control. Other studies suggest that nighttime exposure to light increases the risk of breast cancer by inhibiting the normal nighttime surge of melatonin, which may decrease tumor growth. Evolution has also provided some explanations for conditions such as infertility. The process that eliminates 99.99% of oocytes may have evolved to protect against common genetic defects. And some recurrent spontaneous miscarriages may arise from a system evolved to protect against investing in offspring with combinations of specific genes that predispose to early death from infection."

Medicine Needs Evolution
Randolph M. Nesse, Stephen C. Stearns, and Gilbert S. Omenn (24 February 2006)
Science 311 (5764), 1071. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1125956]

Hey, hang on just a minute, please!
None of the above fits "evolution", as I understand evolution.

The above examples seem to represent "reactions" -- "not" evolution.

Or, did I again miss something?
Of course, proponents of evolution often seem to link the word "evolution" to any change within an organism.

Hey, hang on just a minute, please!
None of the above fits "evolution", as I understand evolution.

The above examples seem to represent "reactions" -- "not" evolution.

Or, did I again miss something?
Of course, proponents of evolution often seem to link the word "evolution" to any change within an organism.

That is because you have already clearly shown you know nothing about evolution.

You're being rather dodgy when all you need to do is show some of this proposed positive conditions stemming from positive mutations.

As far as academic education concerning evolution, Mattshark, I have not studied any of the sciences.

"IF" understanding evolution requires a degree in numerous sciences, then I am an ignoramus.

Mattshark, how many educational degrees do you hold, and in which fields?
Do you consider that you are an acknowledged expert on the subject of evolution?
How many peer reviewed research papers have you had published?

I hope I am not intruding into your life too much, by asking the above questions,
Karlis

Copa, you seem to be playing up to a straw man version of my point over and over. I am not interested in playing "what if" I'm pointing out that SCIENCE does not allow us to conclusively say we know something.

You point out that Science, has taught us this; not all ideas are created equally -some ideas better fit the reality of the universe we observe, others fall into the category of whims. "the reality of the universe WE OBSERVE" Our observations are based on OUR INTERPRETATIONS of what we observe. We build our theories based on OUR COMPREHENSION of what we observe but to use that as the marker of what the "reality" of the universe IS is an excercise in hubris because unless we consistently concede in our investigation that this observation is based on our limited "what a few thousand years or a few hundred years" of what we have discovered.

To suggest that this narrow view actually amounts to anything more than a drop in the ocean of the potentials ESPECIALLY when we are referring backwards to eras in which we have made NO observation whatsoever but only interpretation of what we think happened is ridiculous when its presented as a fact. Serving the purpose of THEORY is not the same thing as serving the purpose of REALITY.

There's no reason to suggest tea pots and rainbow fairies. That's a straw man. No one is saying that there are tea pots floating in space except for scientists. You can take that tea pot and make it a planet or a moon or some sort of unknown space energy that in ways effects the way the planets rotate in a way that we can not comprehend YET, some thing we have not yet seen or understood finally coming to the awareness of such a thing would change everything we have built about things.

We can only know what we can understand and that's it in a nutshell we can only KNOW what we understand and therefore, if there are things that we don't understand they remain unknown to us that doesn't make them non existent it simply makes US ignorant.

1. Science is a tool (a process)
2. Science is limited in scope

ehhhh what?

These are scientists, not simply "proponents of evolution", they know what they are doing.

Evolution is the change in genetic composition in populations, and this is exactly what is happening in the above cases.

Yeah, what a great idea Cimber! I should run right out and do that what fun! I could be like Jesus, bringing sight to the blind!
Although I promise you that none of your professors would look me in the eye and laugh in my face - they would have to wait till I left. Regardless, the refusal of science professors to accept this point doesn't make it less valid it just proves that they are intellectually dishonest about their inherent bias.

Read my signature.

Read my signature.

Hhmmm -- just to simplify the idea of evolution to an absurdity, would you class a condition where (let us say for argument's sake)
*a virus attacks an organism,
*and the organism develops protection against the virus,
= evolution?

Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice may well have said,
Karlis

I hold a BSc (hons) in Marine zoology and zoology and I have been working as a marine zoologist in Florida up until last month when I came back to England to do my masters, which starts in September. I have a choice of either Imperial College of London with Conservation Science or at Queens University in Belfast with Behaviour and Welfare. I'm going to visit Queens University on Monday and then I'll make my decision.

I have 1 peer reviewed paper at the moment but it is not published yet, it will be in August. It is on Otter Behaviour.

Thank you for posting this, Mattshark. I accept that your views on evolution are based on currently accepted mainstream standards. However, I do reserve the right to disagree with any specific conclusions that you may present concerning evolution.

I base my lay-man's views on simple observations and my personal understanding of "logic" -- but then, I can just picture my perceptions of logic in the cross-hairs of a professor holding numerous degrees in the various sciences of logic.

Individuals don't evolve

You have the right to disagree with anything you want, but your argument is baseless if you don't understand the topic at hand.

You're being rather dodgy when all you need to do is show some of this proposed positive conditions stemming from positive mutations.

My point was that we see negative mutations lead to poor health/unfavorable conditions in the human body, so it's not reasonable to look at them as a source for human evolution. Here are some negative conditions caused by mutations in humans.

1. Cancers
2. Muscular dystrophy
3. Cystic fibrosis
4. Tumors
5. Some diabetes

Now please give a list of the positive conditions you're proposing are occurring from positive mutations in humans and how they could be more common then the forementioned conditions and then I'll consider the possibility of evolution through mutations.

Hi Walkingwithfire,

I can't help but notice you seem to have some confusion concerning simple Mendelian genetics and how mutations and heritable changes occur. It certainly makes for a difficult discussion when one is so, ill-informed? What I am going to do, since I gather from other members you dislike having to click on links and certainly have no access to any of these scientific publications, is post an excerpt -followed by a layman's terms, or "plain English" as Koralis would say of what it means. I would greatly like your input as to how these distinguished fellows have drawn the wrong conclusions concerning mutations giving rise to "new genetic information" and what you, as a scientist, suggest they do/say/interpret etc. I don't think that is asking too much for one so well endowed in the sciences as you claim.




So were under no impression that I am being sneak or deceitful, This entire paper is available HERE for free.


Now two important mutations were noted for this. First the mutant bacteria, had a mutation to the region that controlled expression for L-fucose isomerase, this left the enzyme always "on". Normally this would be selected against b/c of waste of resources but since it had a low activity for the 5 carbon sugar, it ended up accounting for its weight in energy. Meaning, that while it wasn't really helping the bacteria much in amount of available energy it really wasn't hurting it either, a neutral mutation (because the low activity for the 5 carbon sugar).

Secondly, a mutation occurred which altered the structure of L-fucose isomerase . Which increased its capacity to isomerize the 5 carbon sugar.

Now this is really interesting because it shows, not just beneficial mutations being selected for, but the evolution of whole new metabolic pathways. As in previously undeveloped. Furthermore, while mutations occur to existing genes or gene expression regions -changes constitute emergence of a new gene sequence, as it is no longer (functionally or informationally) the same gene.


Your thoughts are most welcome.

My point was that we see negative mutations lead to poor health/unfavorable conditions in the human body, so it's not reasonable to look at them as a source for human evolution. Here are some negative conditions caused by mutations in humans.

Cimber, I wrote:
Hhmmm -- just to simplify the idea of evolution to an absurdity, would you class a condition where (let us say for argument's sake)
*a virus attacks an organism,
*and the organism develops protection against the virus,
= evolution?
-=-=-

You say that "individuals don't evolve".
Do you mean that my above example is not evolution?

Let us review the situation:
This organism is affected -- and altered -- by the action of a virus;
this (specific individual) organism "evolves", does it not, by the action of the virus?

I'm becoming more confused,
Karlis

Cimber, I wrote:
Hhmmm -- just to simplify the idea of evolution to an absurdity, would you class a condition where (let us say for argument's sake)
*a virus attacks an organism,
*and the organism develops protection against the virus,
= evolution?
-=-=-

You say that "individuals don't evolve".
Do you mean that my above example is not evolution?

Let us review the situation:
This organism is affected -- and altered -- by the action of a virus;
this (specific individual) organism "evolves", does it not, by the action of the virus?

I'm becoming more confused,
Karlis

That rings a familiar bell in the minefields of religion, if I may cross-pollinate evolution with religion.

Once upon a time the Church held that the Bible was to be read only in Latin;
arguments concerning the Bible (put forward by people who did not understand Latin) were baseless.

Didn't bother reading the whole article then? What a shock. I know lets ignore context.

This is not matter of a language barrier. Nor is the interpretation of this information subjective, as is the interpretation of scripture (which means something different to all of us).

The barrier here is the assimilation of the massed evidence that supports what we call the biological theory of evolution, which is not a subjective interpretation one can make up as they go along. Descriptions must fit with real world observations and so they do. No one said, learning science is easy, or fast or fun all of the time. But with out learning what the real evidence even is, one cannot state conjecture to any degree of knowledge on the subject.

May I pick phrases from your post, please, to show a seeming lack of preciseness, regarding evolution?

"... evidence that supports what we call the biological theory of evolution ..."
"... with out learning what the real evidence even is, one cannot state conjecture to any degree of knowledge ..."

So, how much "theory", and "conjecture" is required to undergird evolution?

I think we could agree (?) to add

3. Science as a tool (process) allows for the differential weighting of ideas -unknowns.
4. Because of the nature of some knowns in science, it allows us to remove certain unknowns.

I found this while I was looking.

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/origin.html

Organic acids, such as those produced by Miller, can damage DNA, causing cancer and other diseases. They also poison our enzymes by irreversibly binding to them.33 Any primordial soup would be filled with these toxic products and would quickly and efficiently prevent the functioning of DNA, RNA, and proteins. The result: death! In fact, it is unlikely that any currently living cell on earth could survive in the chemical environment produced by Miller's experiment.34 Considering the toxicity of the primordial soup, it is perhaps the last place on earth that life might arise.35

The article is not scientifically sound. Take this quotation:


What they don't say is that cyanide and formaldhyde are not toxins in the sense of the environment involved. They are major building blocks for amino acids. Anyone who has taken an introductory course to chemistry or orgo knows this. This is simple stuff.

This is just one example

*a virus attacks an organism,
*and the organism develops protection against the virus,
= evolution?

You say that "individuals don't evolve".
Do you mean that my above example is not evolution?

Let us review the situation:
This organism is affected -- and altered -- by the action of a virus;
this (specific individual) organism "evolves", does it not, by the action of the virus?

The article is not scientifically sound. Take this quotation:


What they don't say is that cyanide and formaldhyde are not toxins in the sense of the environment involved. They are major building blocks for amino acids. Anyone who has taken an introductory course to chemistry or orgo knows this. This is simple stuff.

This is just one example, I mean seriously, do you guys read and research this stuff before you post it, or just post it because it looks scientific.

Cyanide and formaldhyde are not toxins? You are aware that formaldhyde has been used in hospitals as a "cold" sterilant for decades right? You know what they do with it? They kill bacteria!!

...
Did you read what I wrote?

They are not toxins in the environment they were involved in. They are building blocks of amino acids among other biochemicals.

Seriously, this is why you need an education or a background in chemistry or biology to see what nonsense that is in these articles. The least you and others can do is research the topic before automatically posting it with no real understanding of the scientifically unsound points they are trying to make.

For more information:

Kawamoto, K. and M. Akaboshi. 1982. Study on the chemical evolution of low molecular weight compounds in a highly oxidized atmosphere using electric discharges. Origins of Life 12(2): 133-141.

Walkingwith,

Back on page 39, post 584 I provided you with an example of not only a 'positive' mutation, but new information and a new metabolic pathway as well. You have since ignored it and my request to discuss it. I will repost it here for ease of access so that you may address it.




Hi Walkingwithfire,

I can't help but notice you seem to have some confusion concerning simple Mendelian genetics and how mutations and heritable changes occur. It certainly makes for a difficult discussion when one is so, ill-informed? What I am going to do, since I gather from other members you dislike having to click on links and certainly have no access to any of these scientific publications, is post an excerpt -followed by a layman's terms, or "plain English" as Koralis would say of what it means. I would greatly like your input as to how these distinguished fellows have drawn the wrong conclusions concerning mutations giving rise to "new genetic information" and what you, as a scientist, suggest they do/say/interpret etc. I don't think that is asking too much for one so well endowed in the sciences as you claim.




So were under no impression that I am being sneak or deceitful, This entire paper is available HERE for free.


Now two important mutations were noted for this. First the mutant bacteria, had a mutation to the region that controlled expression for L-fucose isomerase, this left the enzyme always "on". Normally this would be selected against b/c of waste of resources but since it had a low activity for the 5 carbon sugar, it ended up accounting for its weight in energy. Meaning, that while it wasn't really helping the bacteria much in amount of available energy it really wasn't hurting it either, a neutral mutation (because the low activity for the 5 carbon sugar).

Secondly, a mutation occurred which altered the structure of L-fucose isomerase . Which increased its capacity to isomerize the 5 carbon sugar.

Now this is really interesting because it shows, not just beneficial mutations being selected for, but the evolution of whole new metabolic pathways. As in previously undeveloped. Furthermore, while mutations occur to existing genes or gene expression regions -changes constitute emergence of a new gene sequence, as it is no longer (functionally or informationally) the same gene.


Your thoughts are most welcome.

Furthermore you keep maintain in light of individuals correcting you, that such a thing as a relative positive or negative mutation exists. Would you please comment on, so we at least know that you have read it (never mind understanding it at this point), that where a mutation arises is contextual.

You state:


Where you term all of those negative. I am not ready to jump into cancer with you, I'm not sure you'll understand the idea of rebellion to an evolutionary colony. So lets go with the other example you have been constantly providing, CF. As we know CF was originally caused by a mutation in the CTR gene, this resulted creation of a new allele for the CTR gene in the population. But, why and how would such a 'negative' mutation as you call it, be allowed to persist in a population? Even more interesting how would this negative mutation spread through the population in the first place?

I am going to take it you are ill-equipped to answer these questions, as I have afforded you the opportunity to do so once already and you politely passed. So lets discuss it now. If I were to offer you a chance to be a carrier of the CF gene (meaning you have mutant allele and one wild type allele) would you take it? Hell no, would likely be the answer. Nor would I blame you.

Now, let's hop into my time machine. We are going to travel back to the end of 1649, our location is Europe, one of the numerous small towns dotting the busy country side. King Charles I has just been beheaded and England's monarchy lay in ruin. France has just made peace with a rebel movement that has brought bloodshed and violence to the peasant class. Cromwell's opening stages of the invasion of Ireland are underway and Pope Innocent X's forces burn the Italian town of Castro to the ground.

As a commoner, you sleep with your animals. Their lives are your livelihood, so when it becomes winter you bring them in your house. You burn their manure as fuel to cook on. You underfed, under paid and under appreciated. Everything you own is dirty, Food is scarce. Disease spreads rampant through cramped living conditions. You are now living in a time, where disease kills thousands every hour of every day. But it gets worse, the growth of town communal living is on the rise. People stacked on top of people on top of animals and dirt. There is an outbreak of a virulent strain of Tuberculosis. It spreads like wildfire through European towns. In areas like where you are now living it kills 1 out of every 3 people.

Here is our setting, here is where our mutation to the gene we call CTR arises. This is the environment and the context. Most importantly though, carrying a copy of the gene gives you a resistance to Tuberculosis. Salvation, from what can only be described as a gruesome death.

Now I ask you the same question, do you take it?



Ultimately, your answer is irrelevant, because I cannot offer you the gene nor can you freely accept it. In this context it certainly appears positive and the judge of its beneficialness has spoken. That judge of course is natural selection. Having one allele for CF gives you a survival advantage, you no longer a 1 in 3 statistic. You make it to a reproductive age and pass on to your progeny (possibly) copies of this gene. Likewise, those of your progeny who are bequeathed with this life saving gene (which stems from a mutation mind you) are slightly more likely to pass on their genes as well. Over the next centuries blooms of pandemics of TB quietly select for carriers of the gene. Changing the frequency for which it occurs in the European population.


Today, in the industrialized world we have all but eradicated TB. It seems to us who forget our history that being a carrier for CF and the mutation that initially lead to its creation as heritable genetic material is a boon. We question our partners and their family history, we seek genetic counselors before we have children to indulge in a game of chances. We curse our luck if we are marked with what those like yourself would term the stigmata of mutation. But, we forget so quickly our history.

Edit: English, Doh

I just flat out disagree with you! I mean I don't know if you understand how patronizing your attitude is. You and others like you live in your own make believe world and think no one else is smart enough to join you. I'm jumping off this crazy train. Yetihunter signs out.

I just flat out disagree with you! I mean I don't know if you understand how patronizing your attitude is. You and others like you live in your own make believe world and think no one else is smart enough to join you. I'm jumping off this crazy train. Yetihunter signs out.

Mutations very rarely bring a positive change in an organism or add genetic information. You're more likely to see just the opposite. Lots of times people say what if you take the following equation:

LOTS OF MUTATIONS X LOTS OF TIME = EVOLUTION <----------------However, this doesn't work because for all the positive mutations you needed to get the desired changes you got a whole lot more neutral or negative mutations.

And your evidence that these positive mutations are occurring more frequently than negative mutations in humans such as the ones I've mentioned?

I just flat out disagree with you! I mean I don't know if you understand how patronizing your attitude is. You and others like you live in your own make believe world and think no one else is smart enough to join you. I'm jumping off this crazy train. Yetihunter signs out.

That rings a familiar bell in the minefields of religion, if I may cross-pollinate evolution with religion.

Once upon a time the Church held that the Bible was to be read only in Latin;
arguments concerning the Bible (put forward by people who did not understand Latin) were baseless.

That rings a familiar bell in the minefields of religion, if I may cross-pollinate evolution with religion.

Once upon a time the Church held that the Bible was to be read only in Latin;
arguments concerning the Bible (put forward by people who did not understand Latin) were baseless.

If I was in a position where it was socially acceptable to smoke what you are smoking, I would smoke it with ya man.

You completely ignored that whole post, somehow formulated my claim is "positive mutations occur more than negative ones" in your mind (regardless that I have been saying the beneficialness of a mutation is contextual). You somehow still claim that negative mutations occur more frequently then positive ones, though you have yet to show any kind of quantifiable evidence regarding the absolute beneficialness of mutations. You thought polydactylism was a somatic mutation occurring in the hand. You did not read (or so I gather) the paper I posted regarding new genetic information, both at the level of the gene and expressed in phenotype (as a metabolic pathway). You have yet to provide some formula or tangible evidence other than your "common sense" about the absolute nature of mutational benefits in relation to fitness (do you know what fitness is?). You ignored your chance to show you at least have a firm grasp of fundamentals of biology and evolution by passing on comment on the way in which CF arose.

All of this, and you change the subject and imply I claimed something I never did.

I think it is safe to say, we can conclude this conversation. Feel free to post some mumbo jumbo about how you have an education in science and it is I who doesn't understand mutations, or more positive mutations must happen, or some more "common sense" examples of negative mutations, whatever thought happens to enter your mind.

-Regards!

The negative ones are weeded out via natural selection, they do not accumulate.