Is there an edge to evolution?

[TripleXBullies]

String, you referred to two things several times.

1 - something along the lines of e.coli losing material the that makes it e.coli

2 - a human with no arms is still a human or a whale with remnants of hip bones is still a whale.

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. If e.coli loses some of what makes it e.coli then it's not e.coli any more. Maybe it's just e.c? If it's still e.coli then it had no need for that material. It just dropped what was unnecessary.

What we have seen in nature is where some section of a species of lizards gets trapped in a cave and after how many years their eyes don't work well any more. Is it still the same lizard as the group that is still outside? I don't know the answer to that question, but I think they'd be classified as different species. If the two were to breed, I doubt the offspring would have full vision. The lizard without full vision, though, while it lost some complexity in vision, it gained some complexity in sensing vibrations and smell. Those complexities are genetic. I can find the example I'm thinking about if you want.

 

[stringmusic]

String, you referred to two things several times.

1 - something along the lines of e.coli losing material the that makes it e.coli

It "threw away" gentic material that classifies it as E. coli.

2 - a human with no arms is still a human or a whale with remnants of hip bones is still a whale.

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. If e.coli loses some of what makes it e.coli then it's not e.coli any more. Maybe it's just e.c? If it's still e.coli then it had no need for that material. It just dropped what was unnecessary.

Key word in your second sentence, "some".

What we have seen in nature is where some section of a species of lizards gets trapped in a cave and after how many years their eyes don't work well any more. Is it still the same lizard as the group that is still outside? I don't know the answer to that question, but I think they'd be classified as different species. If the two were to breed, I doubt the offspring would have full vision. The lizard without full vision, though, while it lost some complexity in vision, it gained some complexity in sensing vibrations and smell. Those complexities are genetic. I can find the example I'm thinking about if you want.

I'm talking about fundamental genetic material. The loss of vision does not change the species of the lizard, the same as a blind person is not classified as a sub species of human.

 

[TripleXBullies]

This isn't like a lizard that once had vision no longer had it. It's to the point that none of them ever develop it. It's a genetic difference, but they are similar enough for scientists to understand that they were once the same.

Keyword SOME doesn't really matter. There are only SOME genetic differences between primates and humans. SOME can be small or they can be big. If I lose some of what makes me human am I still human? If so, then it isn't even leading to my demise. If I lose enough to no longer be human, then it's leading to my demise.

 

[stringmusic]

This isn't like a lizard that once had vision no longer had it. It's to the point that none of them ever develop it. It's a genetic difference, but they are similar enough for scientists to understand that they were once the same.

Keyword SOME doesn't really matter. There are only SOME genetic differences between primates and humans. SOME can be small or they can be big. If I lose some of what makes me human am I still human? If so, then it isn't even leading to my demise. If I lose enough to no longer be human, then it's leading to my demise.

If you're loosing any genetic material, you're moving towards not only no longer being human, but no longer existing at all.

 

[TripleXBullies]

You're making that conclusion based on e.coli losing some of it's genetic material, but still being recognized as e.coli? Not that you have seen or have heard of it happening, right?

 

[StriperrHunterr]

Well the DNA differential between a man and a frog is something tiny like 2%, if memory serves.

It's a little hyperbolic, but not as much as it would sound.

 

[WaltL1]

If you're loosing any genetic material, you're moving towards not only no longer being human, but no longer existing at all.

If I'm reading this right, I think it suggests otherwise -
THURSDAY, Oct. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers have created their first map of parts of the human genome that are considered disposable.
Scientists estimate that at least 2.7 million base pairs of the human genome, which reside in 58 distinct regions of DNA, are non-essential and can disappear without hurting people's health.
The new report builds on previous findings by using microarray technology to find DNA in 600 young and healthy Dutch subjects. Nearly all of the study participants carried so-called complete DNA losses. On average, the number was 50,000 base pairs.
"The results of this study have provided insight into the 'non-essential' parts of the human genome, which will aid in expanding our current understanding of genetic variation among humans," study co-author Terry Vrijenhoek, a medical geneticist from Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands, said in a news release from the American Society of Human Genetics.
"Clearly, while the large majority of our genes are essential, the current research results suggest that hardly any one of us possesses a complete genome," Vrijenhoek added.
The researchers noted that most people can do just fine without the DNA base pairs, even though some of the genes seem to play a role in disease -- like psoriasis -- and food digestion.
It also appears that evolution protects the most important genes by making sure they're not in areas where base pairs are often lost, the study authors explained.

 

[hummdaddy]

If you're loosing any genetic material, you're moving towards not only no longer being human, but no longer existing at all.

that's my point about abortion and the lung sacs not being developed until the 26th week(they are not human until then)

put your foot in your mouth now

 

[hummdaddy]

string

 

[ddd-shooter]

that's my point about abortion and the lung sacs not being developed until the 26th week(they are not human until then)

put your foot in your mouth now

Lung sacs being developed has nothing to do whatsoever with your genetic makeup.

 

[hummdaddy]

Lung sacs being developed has nothing to do whatsoever with your genetic makeup.

are you saying there is no dna in lungs

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20152174


Preparing for the first breath: genetic and cellular mechanisms in lung development.
Morrisey EE, Hogan BL.
Source
Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. emorrise@mail.med.upenn.edu
Abstract
The mammalian respiratory system--the trachea and the lungs--arises from the anterior foregut through a sequence of morphogenetic events involving reciprocal endodermal-mesodermal interactions. The lung itself consists of two highly branched, tree-like systems--the airways and the vasculature--that develop in a coordinated way from the primary bud stage to the generation of millions of alveolar gas exchange units. We are beginning to understand some of the molecular and cellular mechanisms that underlie critical processes such as branching morphogenesis, vascular development, and the differentiation of multipotent progenitor populations. Nevertheless, many gaps remain in our knowledge, the filling of which is essential for understanding respiratory disorders, congenital defects in human neonates, and how the disruption of morphogenetic programs early in lung development can lead to deficiencies that persist throughout life.

http://www.hhmi.org/research/genetic-control-lung-developmen
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/752334
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/pedia...i-lab/Transciptomics-of-Lung-Development.aspx

 

[ddd-shooter]

The material is there, just hasn't had time to develop.

That is like saying you're not a human until after puberty because your body is still developing...

 

[hummdaddy]

The material is there, just hasn't had time to develop.

okie dokie ,you know what that tells me

 

[TripleXBullies]

If I'm reading this right, I think it suggests otherwise -
THURSDAY, Oct. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers have created their first map of parts of the human genome that are considered disposable.
Scientists estimate that at least 2.7 million base pairs of the human genome, which reside in 58 distinct regions of DNA, are non-essential and can disappear without hurting people's health.
The new report builds on previous findings by using microarray technology to find DNA in 600 young and healthy Dutch subjects. Nearly all of the study participants carried so-called complete DNA losses. On average, the number was 50,000 base pairs.
"The results of this study have provided insight into the 'non-essential' parts of the human genome, which will aid in expanding our current understanding of genetic variation among humans," study co-author Terry Vrijenhoek, a medical geneticist from Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands, said in a news release from the American Society of Human Genetics.
"Clearly, while the large majority of our genes are essential, the current research results suggest that hardly any one of us possesses a complete genome," Vrijenhoek added.
The researchers noted that most people can do just fine without the DNA base pairs, even though some of the genes seem to play a role in disease -- like psoriasis -- and food digestion.
It also appears that evolution protects the most important genes by making sure they're not in areas where base pairs are often lost, the study authors explained.

Looks like we're on our way to devolving in to nothingness. It MUST be GOd's plan.

 

[stringmusic]

If I'm reading this right, I think it suggests otherwise -
THURSDAY, Oct. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers have created their first map of parts of the human genome that are considered disposable.
Scientists estimate that at least 2.7 million base pairs of the human genome, which reside in 58 distinct regions of DNA, are non-essential and can disappear without hurting people's health.
The new report builds on previous findings by using microarray technology to find DNA in 600 young and healthy Dutch subjects. Nearly all of the study participants carried so-called complete DNA losses. On average, the number was 50,000 base pairs.
"The results of this study have provided insight into the 'non-essential' parts of the human genome, which will aid in expanding our current understanding of genetic variation among humans," study co-author Terry Vrijenhoek, a medical geneticist from Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands, said in a news release from the American Society of Human Genetics.
"Clearly, while the large majority of our genes are essential, the current research results suggest that hardly any one of us possesses a complete genome," Vrijenhoek added.
The researchers noted that most people can do just fine without the DNA base pairs, even though some of the genes seem to play a role in disease -- like psoriasis -- and food digestion.
It also appears that evolution protects the most important genes by making sure they're not in areas where base pairs are often lost, the study authors explained.

The part in red, that's not what happened as it relates to E. coli, it threw away "gentic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA"

Definition of patrimony
pat·ri·mo·ny [ páttrÉ™ mï ’nee ] 1.heritage: the objects, traditions, or values that one generation has inherited from its ancestors

I would call that pretty important.

 

[TripleXBullies]

I can inherit junk from my ancestors that isn't necessary... and it's not at all important for me to hang on to it..

I agree that your e.coli example is not one that supports evolution to a more complex organism.... but you're arguing the wrong thing here. It lost what wasn't important. It's still what it was before losing it, so it couldn't have been very important.

 

[TripleXBullies]

I can inherit junk from my ancestors that isn't necessary... and it's not at all important for me to hang on to it.. It doesn't make me less me to not hang on to it.

I agree that your e.coli example is not one that supports evolution to a more complex organism.... but you're arguing the wrong thing here. It lost what wasn't important. It's still what it was before losing it, so it couldn't have been very important.

 

[stringmusic]

I can inherit junk from my ancestors that isn't necessary... and it's not at all important for me to hang on to it..

I agree that your e.coli example is not one that supports evolution to a more complex organism.... but you're arguing the wrong thing here. It lost what wasn't important. It's still what it was before losing it, so it couldn't have been very important.

Read post #315 again, especially the quote. I can't consider that "junk".

 

[TripleXBullies]

T"gentic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA"

Sounds important, yes... But what was the result of losing it? If there was no negative impact to losing it, I conclude it's not important. If I'm still e.coli and keep doing the same thing I did before...... I'm good..

 

[stringmusic]

Sounds important, yes... But what was the result of losing it? If there was no negative impact to losing it, I conclude it's not important. If I'm still e.coli and keep doing the same thing I did before...... I'm good..

I've never said that it was no longer E. coli, but that it's heading in the wrong direction, contrary to Darwinian evolutionary theory.

I discuss Lenski’s fascinating work in Chapter 7 of The Edge of Evolution, pointing out that all of the beneficial mutations identified from the studies so far seem to have been degradative ones, where functioning genes are knocked out or rendered less active. So random mutation much more easily breaks genes than builds them, even when it helps an organism to survive. That’s a very important point. A process which breaks genes so easily is not one that is going to build up complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins, which fill the cell.