[BIOLOGY] Evolution

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

[BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:30 pm UTC

Here is how you play "god" or "evolution":

You create an animal "jumping cat". (A cat, that jumps 20 meters to catch a mouse , how awesome is that ? )

You encode in dna sequence its size, shape, behaviour, and put 2 colors: color_1: white, color_2: rock_pattern.

And you put reasonably good amount of individuals on this planet. So lets say color white are 50% and color rock pattern are 50%.

Lets assume its snowy. The white jumping cat is nearly invisible , both for the pray and for large predators. Eating all day as much as it has, and fucking every female it meets.

The rock-colored cat, looks like someone took a dump on the snow. CLEARLY visible even for a pray that doesnt pay attention, and also easy pray for predators. It barely have time to "stay alive", cannot hunt good, and the last thing in its mind is to fight the fat-ass white cat for females.

So, after a while its 85% white jumping cats and 15% rock pattern.

But, environment changes:

Snow melts,rock cat is now hidden, roles are reversed.
So after some time, its 85% rock cats and 15% white cats.

What does this tell us?

Natural selection helps to preserve the species , by keeping up the most useful part of your code, taking environment into account.

Now, why evolution is a shitload of lies.

If you have noticed, the cats run from almost all white, to almost all rock pattern color.
They dont go red or pink, or anything , that was not allready in the code.

A fried of mine explained random mutations like that: you put sticks in a bottle, the glue and some fabric. You shake it, and hope that you get exactly that ancient galleon, you have in mind.

Some people say: but you have chance.

Random mutation, exactly when you need it. With the ability of the host to have offsprings with the unmutated pecies. With the ability thouse genes to be dominant.
If you ask me , you have to do ALOT of shaking to this bottle.

I know , that this is against what people are teaching thouse days. Against science in general.

But ive seen this code. I dont know how it works. I am average programer.
But I cant tell you, that its too long. Too complex to have anything random in it.

With all the protocols there: how to copy it, when to copy it, error checking and repairing errors.

The "evolution" , as the scientist explain it today, is a crap.
I have no answer, where we came from, I am just sure, where we didnt.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby PolakoVoador » Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:59 pm UTC

May I ask what is your point with this thread? Are you willing to read feedback that goes directly in the face of how you think things work?

twinsen wrote:Now, why evolution is a shitload of lies.
[...]
The "evolution" , as the scientist explain it today, is a crap.

Oh, forget I asked, it's gonna be that kind of thread.

But for the sake of anyone reasonable reading, let's assume your answer to my last question was yes.

The ancient galleon in a bottle analogy is a really poor one but we can make it better:

1) Shake the bottle.
2) Create a new bottles with sticks, glue and fabric, trying to replicate the first bottle as close as possible.
3) Shake some of them.
4) Copy as best as you can the bottles which are closer to your idea of ancient galleon.
5) Shake some of them.
6) Go to number 4. (repeat for 3.5 Billion Years)


This is not a perfect analogy, but it is better than what your friend told you.

twinsen wrote:If you have noticed, the cats run from almost all white, to almost all rock pattern color.
They dont go red or pink, or anything , that was not allready in the code.

That's just because YOU decided, in YOUR example, that there was no code for red or pink cats. Reality doesn't care about that.

twinsen wrote:But ive seen this code. I dont know how it works. I am average programer.
But I cant tell you, that its too long. Too complex to have anything random in it.

With all the protocols there: how to copy it, when to copy it, error checking and repairing errors.

I will go out on a limb here and say that you have not, in fact, seen this code. But you're right when you say you don't know how it works.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:08 pm UTC

False. There is so much wrong here.

OP, if you have a specific question or idea you want to put forth, please do so. But this is a bunch of incorrect gibberish.

Where are you sure we 'didn't come from'?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:30 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:False. There is so much wrong here.

OP, if you have a specific question or idea you want to put forth, please do so. But this is a bunch of incorrect gibberish.

Where are you sure we 'didn't come from'?


False, so much wrong were really nice arguments, thank you for joining the discussion.

We didnt come from mutations.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby PolakoVoador » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:46 pm UTC

twinsen wrote:We didnt come from mutations.

[citation needed]

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Whizbang » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:46 pm UTC

It seems you have a very rudimentary understanding of how evolution works.

This video series is a lecture done by Richard Dawkins on "Climbing Mount Improbable", to an audience of children. This is a great lecture that describes evolution in terms that someone who is not an evolutionary biologist can understand and transfer that understanding to the world around them. Please watch it, or a similar lecture on evolution if you wish, before throwing around claims like "We didn't come from mutations".

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... 6E34D3DD0A

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:48 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:May I ask what is your point with this thread? Are you willing to read feedback that goes directly in the face of how you think things work?

The ancient galleon in a bottle analogy is a really poor one but we can make it better:

1) Shake the bottle.
2) Create a new bottles with sticks, glue and fabric, trying to replicate the first bottle as close as possible.
3) Shake some of them.
4) Copy as best as you can the bottles which are closer to your idea of ancient galleon.
5) Shake some of them.
6) Go to number 4. (repeat for 3.5 Billion Years)

I will go out on a limb here and say that you have not, in fact, seen this code. But you're right when you say you don't know how it works.


I have question:

If we follow evolution logic, 3.5 billion years ago, you didnt wanted "galleon", sinse the environment was different. Why do you assume, you were copying bottles with "galleon" charactersitics? (instead of a tee cup for example )

For this I can say that you are wrong:
1) at step 4, becouse you were copying bullshits, useful for that time. (nothing to do with galeon, useful today)
Or
2) at step 6, you had less time (really really less time )

Please choose where you are wrong, and answer me.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Whizbang » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:53 pm UTC

He said the analogy was better, not perfect. The analogy of sticks in a bottle is extremely poor no matter how you look at it. He merely stated that your original analogy did not account for reproduction and selection pressure.

Also, it breaks down further in that there is no goal for evolution. There is no intent or end-game. There is simply organisms that either reproduce or they do not, and the ones that reproduce pass on their genetic code. The process of passing on that code is not quite perfect, however, and variance occurs. Those whose variance reduces their chances of survival do not survive to pass on that variance. Those whose variance improves the chance of survival do. The variance that do not influence survival merely accumulate or die off as a matter of chance.
Last edited by Whizbang on Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:55 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:
twinsen wrote:We didnt come from mutations.

[citation needed]


The total length of the human genome is over 3 billion base pairs. The genome is organized into 22 paired chromosomes, the X chromosome (one in males, two in females) and, in males only, one Y chromosome, all being large linear DNA molecules contained within the cell nucleus. It also includes the mitochondrial DNA, a comparatively small circular molecule present in each mitochondrion.

Sure, this was random.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Whizbang » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:58 pm UTC

Evolution is not random. There is a very small random element to it, but the process of selection is anything but random.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:09 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:It seems you have a very rudimentary understanding of how evolution works.

This video series is a lecture done by Richard Dawkins on "Climbing Mount Improbable", to an audience of children. This is a great lecture that describes evolution in terms that someone who is not an evolutionary biologist can understand and transfer that understanding to the world around them. Please watch it, or a similar lecture on evolution if you wish, before throwing around claims like "We didn't come from mutations".

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... 6E34D3DD0A


That lock example was amazing. You have to guess 3 numbers, and its hard to guess them . But you can guess them one by one.

It seem like nice logic. It happens before your eyes, so should be true. But its not.

An organism is a whole, and should work together.

You cant evolve to make your voice cords to make ultra sound, and after 99999 generation to evolve your ears shape to match your movements, and after 9999 to make your brain actually able to hear this ultra sound, and make him calculate timing from your voice cord vibration signal, to return of the signal to determine distance.

All has to work together. If you have voice and you cant hear it - no evolutionary benefit WHATSOEVER.
if you have both, but your ears are aside, you still cant hear it, so no benefit.

And this for 2-3 genes interacting with eachother.

Imagine more complex , with that lock from the video with 999 genes.

Again: a complex organism, requires sometimes signifficant count of genes, so ANYONE of them to make sense.
This cant be random.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:10 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:Evolution is not random. There is a very small random element to it, but the process of selection is anything but random.


sellection, for you means that something is generated.

I am asking here for generation of code, not for selection. I have pretty much explained how natural selection works, and how it makes sense.
Evolution as code generation does not make sense.

Please read my post again.

Edit:
Please tell me, that you dont think that 1 GB code was there, when life "came out".

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Whizbang » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:24 pm UTC

Who says the ability to make sound needs to evolve at the same time as your ability to hear it? Also, even a very weak ability to sense "sound" (vibrations in the air) is beneficial. An animal that can hear, even if the range is small and only a small range of sounds, has a better chance of survival than one who doesn't.

All that is needed to evolve an ear is for a single part of the body, any part, to vibrate slightly in the presence of sound. As each new generation occurs, those whose body part vibrates slightly better survive. Those whose nerve connections transfer the sensation to the brain better survive. Those who do both survive even better. Two separate genes (one controlling the growth of the small vibrating body part and the other controlling the sensitivity of the nerve connected to that body part) can evolve separately, and yet compliment each other. As one gets stronger, it allows changes in the other to be taken advantage of.

So, you have one bit of code controlling the growth of the nerve. As reproduction occurs, small variances can occur in this bit of code. Some of those variances improve the function, some decrease the function, and some don't change the function at all. The variances that improve function are selected for and soon fill the population.

Add in the evolution of the small vibrating body part in conjunction and soon you have a sense of sound.

Genes all evolve separately. You are merely looking at the product of a lot of selection. If you were to add up the number of organisms that lived to reproduce and then compare that to the number of organisms that didn't, you wouldn't be saying what you are saying. The number of mutations/variances/organisms that do not make it through the process of selection is staggering.

If you take a sample size of a single person and that person just happens to have won the lottery, it seems miraculous. But if, instead, you increase your sample size to everyone who bought a ticket, then that single winner doesn't seem all that surprising.

As far as code generation goes, have you any idea how messy chemistry is, especially biochemistry? It is a wonder that we are at all similar to our parents, not a wonder that we are different.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:29 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:He said the analogy was better, not perfect. The analogy of sticks in a bottle is extremely poor no matter how you look at it. He merely stated that your original analogy did not account for reproduction and selection pressure.

Also, it breaks down further in that there is no goal for evolution. There is no intent or end-game. There is simply organisms that either reproduce or they do not, and the ones that reproduce pass on their genetic code. The process of passing on that code is not quite perfect, however, and variance occurs. Those whose variance reduces their chances of survival do not survive to pass on that variance. Those whose variance improves the chance of survival do. The variance that do not influence survival merely accumulate or die off as a matter of chance.


His analogy wasnt better, is sucked as bad as the other one. As any other analogy will, for something that is not there (as evolution.)

-Also, it breaks down further in that there is no goal for evolution. There is no intent or end-game.
Wrong, becouse the goal is to make the majority of individuals resilent to the environment.

There is simply organisms that either reproduce or they do not, and the ones that reproduce pass on their genetic code.
The more resilent individuals have higher chance to reproduce, than thouse who are not.

The process of passing on that code is not quite perfect, however, and variance occurs. Those whose variance reduces their chances of survival do not survive to pass on that variance. Those whose variance improves the chance of survival do. The variance that do not influence survival merely accumulate or die off as a matter of chanc

Can you explain whay you call variance?

For me crossingover is not variance, in a way of new code. Its mixed code segments.
If its new code, please explain.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Whizbang » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

twinsen wrote:Edit:
Please tell me, that you dont think that 1 GB code was there, when life "came out".



No.

First, that is a matter of Abiogenesis, rather than Evolution, which are different fields of study. Second, no one claims the first reproducing molecule was anything near as complex as the DNA we see today.

The hypothesis of Abiogenesis goes something like this (though I am not an expert so may get it wrong)
Once, long ago, a simple molecule just happened to be able to reproduce. Most likely the offspring molecule was only vaguely similar to the parent molecule. But this offspring was also able to reproduce. Again, the offspring was probably noticeably different than its parent, and even different than its siblings. Some of these siblings were not able to reproduce and so their "code" did not survive. But some of the siblings were able to reproduce, and so they did because they were merely molecules and that is what they do, interact with whatever other molecules just happen to be in the area. Gradually those molecules that were able to produce offspring that were more similar to the parent began to become the dominant molecule. However, the process was far from perfect and many variances still occurred. Again, some of the variances were beneficial, some were detrimental, and some were neutral. And these variances were small, to our eyes. Maybe one atom in the molecule was a different element than the parent. Maybe there was an added atom at the end. Or maybe there were several variances. Remember, these are just chemical processes, and whichever atom nearby that just happens to fit in the slot at the time of reaction will do so.

So, we have a simple molecule that produces imperfect copies of itself, and off goes life. Atoms stick themselves to the offspring or not according to the rules of chemistry. Those variances add up through the non-random process of selection. Add in heaps and heaps and heaps of time and generations, and you get to the world we are in today.

The problem people have with this is that it deals with the very small (molecules), and the very large (time). Our brains do not handle these concepts very well, and so throw an alert up that something doesn't seem right. But realize that just because your ape brain doesn't think something is right doesn't mean that that something is wrong. It just means you have the brain of an ape and so need to use tools of methodological inquiry to figure out whether or not the idea matches the real world.

twinsen wrote:Can you explain whay you call variance?

For me crossingover is not variance, in a way of new code. Its mixed code segments.
If its new code, please explain.


I use variance because that is what it is. It is different than the parent code. It varies. You can call it mutation, if you like, many people do, but I prefer variance because that is what it is. Mutation implies, to me and I suspect to many, an imperfection. There is neither perfection nor imperfection in life, there is simply life.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:47 pm UTC

twinsen, it's very evident that you have at best an introductory (chapter) level of understanding of biology. Your ability to communicate your ideas is further hampered by your writing style, wherein you make vague, single line claims, that are not supported by anything other than incredulity.

Step 1: Make a clear and concise claim.
Step 2: Support said claim with evidence.
Step 3: Address criticisms of your claim.

Lets start there. You seem to be convinced that humans today, having the genome we do, is proof that evolution is wrong. Tell us why, using biological terms other than 'because it has to be'.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:57 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:
twinsen wrote:Edit:
Please tell me, that you dont think that 1 GB code was there, when life "came out".



No.

First, that is a matter of Abiogenesis, rather than Evolution, which are different fields of study. Second, no one claims the first reproducing molecule was anything near as complex as the DNA we see today.

The hypothesis of Abiogenesis goes something like this (though I am not an expert so may get it wrong)
Once, long ago, a simple molecule just happened to be able to reproduce. Most likely the offspring molecule was only vaguely similar to the parent molecule. But this offspring was also able to reproduce. Again, the offspring was probably noticeably different than its parent, and even different than its siblings. Some of these siblings were not able to reproduce and so their "code" did not survive. But some of the siblings were able to reproduce, and so they did because they were merely molecules and that is what they do, interact with whatever other molecules just happen to be in the area. Gradually those molecules that were able to produce offspring that were more similar to the parent began to become the dominant molecule. However, the process was far from perfect and many variances still occurred. Again, some of the variances were beneficial, some were detrimental, and some were neutral. And these variances were small, to our eyes. Maybe one atom in the molecule was a different element than the parent. Maybe there was an added atom at the end. Or maybe there were several variances. Remember, these are just chemical processes, and whichever atom nearby that just happens to fit in the slot at the time of reaction will do so.

So, we have a simple molecule that produces imperfect copies of itself, and off goes life. Atoms stick themselves to the offspring or not according to the rules of chemistry. Those variances add up through the non-random process of selection. Add in heaps and heaps and heaps of time and generations, and you get to the world we are in today.

The problem people have with this is that it deals with the very small (molecules), and the very large (time). Our brains do not handle these concepts very well, and so throw an alert up that something doesn't seem right. But realize that just because your ape brain doesn't think something is right doesn't mean that that something is wrong. It just means you have the brain of an ape and so need to use tools of methodological inquiry to figure out whether or not the idea matches the real world.

twinsen wrote:Can you explain whay you call variance?

For me crossingover is not variance, in a way of new code. Its mixed code segments.
If its new code, please explain.


I use variance because that is what it is. It is different than the parent code. It varies. You can call it mutation, if you like, many people do, but I prefer variance because that is what it is. Mutation implies, to me and I suspect to many, an imperfection. There is neither perfection nor imperfection in life, there is simply life.


Man, first of all, how life came , there are tons of unverified data. Lets assume we have DNA, that is rather short. Not 3 000 000 000 bases.
And stick to how it got from (N bases, you tell me number), to 3 000 000 000.

And here is your main problem:

Your variation doesnt explain how it got to 3 000 000 000.
There is a difference between.
Taking part of code from A and part of B , making C, that is different from A , and different of B.

And CREATING code, attaching it to A , making C, that is fully functional.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:59 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:twinsen, it's very evident that you have at best an introductory (chapter) level of understanding of biology. Your ability to communicate your ideas is further hampered by your writing style, wherein you make vague, single line claims, that are not supported by anything other than incredulity.

Step 1: Make a clear and concise claim.
Step 2: Support said claim with evidence.
Step 3: Address criticisms of your claim.

Lets start there. You seem to be convinced that humans today, having the genome we do, is proof that evolution is wrong. Tell us why, using biological terms other than 'because it has to be'.


So you suggest to me thouse things, ( I agree with them ), and your first post is:

Izawwlgood:
False. There is so much wrong here.

OP, if you have a specific question or idea you want to put forth, please do so. But this is a bunch of incorrect gibberish.

Where are you sure we 'didn't come from'?

Im sorry man, I cant take you even for second serious.

Edit: Ok , I give you second chance:

1. I claim that a code cannot generate randomly and be fully functional.

2. Evidence: 3 000 000 000, biggest part of wich are interacting together, and are useless by itself.
Considering its trully random, the chance is ~0.

Criticsm - go!
Last edited by twinsen on Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:07 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:01 pm UTC

twinsen wrote:And stick to how it got from (N bases, you tell me number), to 3 000 000 000. Your variation doesnt explain how it got to 3 000 000 000.

Yes it does?

twinsen wrote:Im sorry man, I cant take you even for second serious.
I urge you for a second to consider that there are people here who know more about biology than you do, and your claims here are very ignorant. To give you the benefit of a doubt, I'm encouraging you to establish a framework from which we can discuss your ideas. But you should very much consider taking some of the posters in this thread more seriously than you are.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:35 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
twinsen wrote:And stick to how it got from (N bases, you tell me number), to 3 000 000 000. Your variation doesnt explain how it got to 3 000 000 000.

Yes it does?

twinsen wrote:Im sorry man, I cant take you even for second serious.
I urge you for a second to consider that there are people here who know more about biology than you do, and your claims here are very ignorant. To give you the benefit of a doubt, I'm encouraging you to establish a framework from which we can discuss your ideas. But you should very much consider taking some of the posters in this thread more seriously than you are.


I dont know much about biology. I know about programming.

As for the code duplication. It took me a while to seek sourses and understand what they ment.

I have few questions about ice fish evolution.

1)Why there is a working anti-freeze protein, that was supressed by the other one at first place.
This was (as I said, working code, that was just beeing blocked)

Edit:Answer this, I have more

To be clear, this was the best example, for evolution due to duplication.

They explain how the fish developed anti-freeze ability.

The funny thing is , that it had it all along, but with duplication, the conflict between proteins was solved so...
Explain again, how could it have 2 proteins, not working, and then 2 proteins working?
Last edited by twinsen on Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:40 pm UTC

twinsen wrote:I dont know much about biology. I know about programming.
You have stated as much - I encourage you to ease up on your biological claims, given your acknowledged ignorance of biology. There are absolutely intriguing parallels to molecular cell biology and programming, but they are NOT equivalents.

twinsen wrote:1)Why there is a working anti-freeze protein, that was supressed by the other one at first place.
This was (as I said, working code, that was just beeing blocked)
I don't know what you're specifically referring to, but to take a stab - generally speaking, genes are not 'lost', they are silenced, and then over time, degraded (due to variation, though there are of course deletion events, etc). So, what has happened many times over the course of evolution, is a gene or series of genes will evolve, then conditions will change and the gene will be silenced (or partially silenced), and the phenotype lost. An example of this is teeth in birds.
EDIT: There are many examples of remnant silenced gene products in all manner of animals. I believe mammals still have the gene for egg shell protein, for example.

The gene remains, though the activation state changes. Over time, the gene, as it is 'non essential', may be further mutated to the point of being nonsense.

Please specifically state what this has to do with your theory of evolution.

Also, there's an edit button, please stop double posting. And please don't edit your posts after someone has responded to them.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:46 pm UTC

I'm double posting because you've edited your post after I responded to it.

It occurs to me you probably are unaware of gene silencing/activation. This may explain a good deal of your misunderstanding about how changes to DNA/phenotypes can manifest.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:48 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
twinsen wrote:I dont know much about biology. I know about programming.
You have stated as much - I encourage you to ease up on your biological claims, given your acknowledged ignorance of biology. There are absolutely intriguing parallels to molecular cell biology and programming, but they are NOT equivalents.

twinsen wrote:1)Why there is a working anti-freeze protein, that was supressed by the other one at first place.
This was (as I said, working code, that was just beeing blocked)
I don't know what you're specifically referring to, but to take a stab - generally speaking, genes are not 'lost', they are silenced, and then over time, degraded (due to variation, though there are of course deletion events, etc). So, what has happened many times over the course of evolution, is a gene or series of genes will evolve, then conditions will change and the gene will be silenced (or partially silenced), and the phenotype lost. An example of this is teeth in birds.
EDIT: There are many examples of remnant silenced gene products in all manner of animals. I believe mammals still have the gene for egg shell protein, for example.

The gene remains, though the activation state changes. Over time, the gene, as it is 'non essential', may be further mutated to the point of being nonsense.

Please specifically state what this has to do with your theory of evolution.

Also, there's an edit button, please stop double posting.


It gives me the creeps to quote 2 or more different posts at same time, I think It doesnt make such a big differense, since the content is quite large, so I wont stop.
Sorry.

As for my question:

The page you posted, for evolving new abilities, in ice-fish example.
Please answer my question, when you are saying its possible:

"Where the hell did this anti freeze protein come out in the first place"?

Its said that the duplication "set the protein free". So it was not functioning in the fish , conflicting with another.
Please tell me, how this "working code", appeared there at first place. IT shouldnt be that hard.

(Im not gonna read more of your link, before you explain this what I allready read)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:53 pm UTC

You can selectively respond to specific points by highlighting the quote, and hitting the quote button. You can also make use of the 'quote' hash, or simply copypaste what you're responding to if you can't make sense of the boards formatting. It's difficult to respond to you reposting entire previous posts, because it's hard to tell what you're specifically referring to.

twinsen wrote:"Where the hell did this anti freeze protein come out in the first place"?
It came about due to variation and selection pressure. I'm not sure if you're asking an abiogenesis question or a 'how does evolution work' question.

twinsen wrote:Its said that the duplication "set the protein free". So it was not functioning in the fish , conflicting with another.
Please tell me, how this "working code", appeared there at first place. IT shouldnt be that hard.
That is not what is said of duplication events. Can you specifically reference what you are talking about with this fish example?

It seems like you don't understand how new protein or new functionality can arise in living systems. The answer is variability (mutations or otherwise) and selection pressure.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:55 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I'm double posting because you've edited your post after I responded to it.

It occurs to me you probably are unaware of gene silencing/activation. This may explain a good deal of your misunderstanding about how changes to DNA/phenotypes can manifest.


What the hell? This is the 3rd shitload of information you are posting, and you still dont explain a simple thing:

Code segment A , with proteins a, b encoded there.
Code segment B, is copy of A, with protein b only, so no conflinct is present.

While code semgent A doesnt make us anti-freeze, and B does, wich you count for "code generation".

I am asking you to explain where protein b sequence came from in first place in code segment A, since obviously it is a "working code"
And is not benefitial in any way for the individual survival.

Here is little part of what you sent me:

Gene duplication as an evolutionary event
Evolutionary fate of duplicate genes
Neofunctionalization

Gene duplications are an essential source of genetic novelty that can lead to evolutionary innovation. Duplication creates genetic redundancy, where the second copy of the gene is often free from selective pressure — that is, mutations of it have no deleterious effects to its host organism. If one copy of a gene experiences a mutation that affects its original function, the second copy can serve as a 'spare part' and continue to function correctly. Thus duplicate genes accumulate mutations faster than a functional single-copy gene, over generations of organisms, and it is possible for one of the two copies to develop a new and different function. Some examples of such neofunctionalization is the apparent mutation of a duplicated digestive gene in a family of ice fish into an antifreeze gene and duplication leading to a novel snake venom gene [3] and the synthesis of 1 beta-hydroxytestosterone.[4]

Gene duplication is believed to play a major role in evolution; this stance has been held by members of the scientific community for over 100 years.[5] Susumu Ohno was one of the most famous developers of this theory in his classic book Evolution by gene duplication (1970).[6] Ohno argued that gene duplication is the most important evolutionary force since the emergence of the universal common ancestor.[7] Major genome duplication events can be quite common. It is believed that the entire yeast genome underwent duplication about 100 million years ago.[8] Plants are the most prolific genome duplicators. For example, wheat is hexaploid (a kind of polyploid), meaning that it has six copies of its genome.

IT SAYS:
Gene duplication as an evolutionary event

And the one what I have read about is the Ice-fish.

Please answer!
Last edited by twinsen on Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Whizbang » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:58 pm UTC

twinsen wrote:The funny thing is , that it had it all along, but with duplication, the conflict between proteins was solved so...
Explain again, how could it have 2 proteins, not working, and then 2 proteins working?



In the E. coli long-term evolution experiment, they take a sample of E. Coli every day and put it into a new dish, and see what occurs. Among many results was an evolution of aerobic citrate usage in one population. This clearly shows how some genes can change over time and provide no noticeable affect, but when those genes are combined with other mutations can lead to improvement. The ability to metabolize citrate was dependant on at least two separate variations in the genes.

Now take a look at the number of generations it took to get to that ability.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:59 pm UTC

Please respond to my previous post answering your questions.

If by 'shitload of information' you mean 'basic information answering fundamental things about biology twinsen does not understand', then yes, I'm trying to educate you here. That may be a mistake on my part. I hope you demonstrate otherwise.

twinsen wrote:Code segment A , with proteins a, b encoded there.
Code segment B, is copy of A, with protein b only, so no conflinct is present.

While code semgent A doesnt make us anti-freeze, and B does, wich you count for "code generation".

I am asking you to explain where protein b sequence came from in first place in code segment A, since obviously it is a "working code"
And is not benefitial in any way for the individual survival.
I'm not certain what you're talking about, because you're giving a hypothetical that does not really jive with how things actually operate, but it sounds like what you're asking about can be explained via a combination of gene silencing and duplication events.

Duplication events can occur from 'working genes'. Either or both or neither genes can subsequently be silenced. Or activated. Or individually mutated.

It can clearly be beneficial, because it can be selected for. Having multiple copies and variants of the same gene can serve all manner of beneficial goals.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby twinsen » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:03 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:
twinsen wrote:The funny thing is , that it had it all along, but with duplication, the conflict between proteins was solved so...
Explain again, how could it have 2 proteins, not working, and then 2 proteins working?



In the E. coli long-term evolution experiment, they take a sample of E. Coli every day and put it into a new dish, and see what occurs. Among many results was an evolution of aerobic citrate usage in one population. This clearly shows how some genes can change over time and provide no noticeable affect, but when those genes are combined with other mutations can lead to improvement. The ability to metabolize citrate was dependant on at least two separate variations in the genes.

Now take a look at the number of generations it took to get to that ability.


Man , the question can be answered with one line, you post PAGES of information with extra attachments to it.

See how simple I ask it:

There is something that is working as a code, is a code segment. That code segment have been duplicated, due to error or whatsoever, so that "working code", from "beeing supressed" got "working again".

Explain how this was GENERATED as code at first place.

If you can explain it - explain. This is what I had till now as example for code generation.

Again: I understand verry well, how a copy of a code can lead to something different.
I dont understand how this code is beeing generated before beeing copied.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:06 pm UTC

Please stop editing your posts after we have responded to them, it makes responding to you very confusing and difficult. You also just copied text that explains the 'antifreeze gene' event, so I'm not sure what you're still uncertain about, unless;
twinsen wrote:Explain how this was GENERATED as code at first place.

If you can explain it - explain. This is what I had till now as example for code generation.
You're asking for one thing, then dismissing the answers given as something else. So, again;
Izawwlgood wrote:It seems like you don't understand how new protein or new functionality can arise in living systems. The answer is variability (mutations or otherwise) and selection pressure.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby SDK » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:11 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:
twinsen wrote:The funny thing is , that it had it all along, but with duplication, the conflict between proteins was solved so...
Explain again, how could it have 2 proteins, not working, and then 2 proteins working?



In the E. coli long-term evolution experiment, they take a sample of E. Coli every day and put it into a new dish, and see what occurs. Among many results was an evolution of aerobic citrate usage in one population. This clearly shows how some genes can change over time and provide no noticeable affect, but when those genes are combined with other mutations can lead to improvement. The ability to metabolize citrate was dependant on at least two separate variations in the genes.

Now take a look at the number of generations it took to get to that ability.

Yeah, twinsen, even if you don't click on any other link in this thread, read this one. This experiment is very interesting and has resulted in some pretty amazing confirmation of how evolution works.

One thing Whizbang mentioned is the ability to metabolize citrate, something that actually would make that particular population technically something other than E. coli (since NOT using citrate is characteristic of the species). But that's besides the point. The main reason this applies to the conversation is how that particular mutation came about. Through regrowth of previous (frozen) samples of that population, they were able to reproduce the same mutation again - but only after generation 20000. They determined that a neutral, random mutation enabled that future mutation to take place. This mutation has never taken place in any generation before 20000 or in any of the other populations. The fact that some beneficial mutations require these neutral mutations to already be in place might seem to support your idea that you need to build the whole galleon at once, but what you should really take away from this is how neutral mutations take hold in populations on a regular basis and can provide significant benefit in the future.

tl;dr: Neutral mutations happen all the time. Your anti-freeze example may have been a dormant mutation from a previous generation that needed it, or it may have just been entirely random.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1243
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Sizik » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:23 pm UTC

Here's a short (13 minute) educational video concerning the evolution of the ice fish. I've linked to the time that they start talking about the antifreeze gene. Basically, a digestive enzyme gene was duplicated, and the duplicate happened to mutate over time to produce a different protein (antifreeze) instead.

If the video feels too simplified to address your questions, here's the actual paper by the scientists featured in the video.
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:31 pm UTC

I really, really doubt he's going to watch the video. The arguments he's regurgitating here are decades-old copypasta. I don't think it's possible to encounter all of them without encountering a simple, actual explanation from someone who knows what they're talking about. I don't know why people create threads like this one, but it isn't because they intend to read the responses. I don't personally feel the urge to dance on command here.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:31 pm UTC

CB is wise.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby PolakoVoador » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:36 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:I really, really doubt he's going to watch the video. The arguments he's regurgitating here are decades-old copypasta. I don't think it's possible to encounter all of them without encountering a simple, actual explanation from someone who knows what they're talking about. I don't know why people create threads like this one, but it isn't because they intend to read the responses. I don't personally feel the urge to dance on command here.


Even if they won't watch the video, someone might. OP here is clearly not in the mood for anything resembling a rational debate. But if other poeple stumble across this thread and learn something, then I call it a net win.

User avatar
Mokele
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Mokele » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:40 pm UTC

This seems appropriate

Image

twinsen has already decided he knows the answer, and will simply refuse to listen to anything else, or will warp it to fit his needs. There's no changing his mind short of a genuine education or a lobotomy.
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: [BIOLOGY] Evolution

Postby Azrael » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:20 pm UTC

Just because Gmal hasn't come to the same conclusion that I have doesn't mean he won't.

Locked until he has the opportunity


(I also concur with this decision. - gmal)


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests