Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Earth old enough for DNA to evolve?
bcoop
Junior Member (Idle past 4264 days)
Posts: 27
From: Maine
Joined: 07-14-2012


Message 1 of 7 (667981)
07-14-2012 9:37 PM


Short question or statement: There is not enough time available in the acknowledged age of the earth for the human genome to have formed. The hypothesis is that the math doesn’t work for DNA to have developed because the earth isn’t old enough.
Basis:
1. The acknowledged age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years, with the simplest life forms arriving only 2 billion years ago.
2. The human genome has approximately 3 billion base pairs of DNA arranged into 46 chromosomes.
3. Evolutionary theory holds that the human genome developed through a series of DNA replication errors.
4. The base pairs are the building blocks of DNA. If I follow evolutionary theory correctly, if there are 3 billion base pairs then it took 3 billion replication errors to arrive at the current DNA structure ( unless multiple simultaneous positive replication errors occurred).
5. If there was a successful DNA replication error each generation then it would take 3 billion reproductive generations to arrive where we are today.
Problems:
a. 3 billion generations would take 60 billion years if each female reproduced at the age of 20. It is stated that life on earth is only 2 billion years old.
b. It would take longer if any of the errors were deleterious and not advantageous. (In summary, it is generally accepted that the majority of mutations are neutral or deleterious, with rare mutations being advantageous. One example is a study done on the distribution of fitness effects of random mutations in vesicular stomatitis virus.[34] Out of all mutations, 39.6% were lethal, 31.2% were non-lethal deleterious, and 27.1% were neutral (97.9%).
c. This assumes that each and every mutation was the exact necessary mutation needed in the right order. Each block of the genome has to be built in the right order. You don’t need the lens of the eye before the optic nerve exists for example).
d. It also assumes that each generation got the opportunity to successfully reproduce and didn’t die first or something.
e. The replication error of a single base pair out of the 3 billion pairs can result in a genetically transmitted disease. We need 3 billion positive consecutive errors with no negative errors along the way.
f. There is no provision at all here for natural selection because that would exponentially add much more time.
6. I am sure this has been studied and discussed — can you point me to literature or web sites where I can read about this issue?
Reference is from Wikipedia

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-14-2012 10:24 PM bcoop has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 7 (667985)
07-14-2012 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bcoop
07-14-2012 9:37 PM


Source please
I'm pretty confident message 1 isn't an original production on your part. Please supply reference link to where you got it.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bcoop, posted 07-14-2012 9:37 PM bcoop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by bcoop, posted 07-15-2012 12:18 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

bcoop
Junior Member (Idle past 4264 days)
Posts: 27
From: Maine
Joined: 07-14-2012


Message 3 of 7 (667998)
07-15-2012 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
07-14-2012 10:24 PM


Re: Source please
I spent about two hours writing it last night - not sure why you would say that. I am not a professional but I do think about these things a lot which is why I wrote the post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-14-2012 10:24 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by bcoop, posted 07-15-2012 12:39 PM bcoop has not replied

bcoop
Junior Member (Idle past 4264 days)
Posts: 27
From: Maine
Joined: 07-14-2012


Message 4 of 7 (667999)
07-15-2012 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by bcoop
07-15-2012 12:18 PM


Re: Source please
Maybe I misunderstood you - there is a reference on my post to wikipedia. Para 5.b of my post is a direct copy from Wikipedia at Mutation - Wikipedia - all other content is mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bcoop, posted 07-15-2012 12:18 PM bcoop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 07-16-2012 7:22 AM bcoop has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 7 (668020)
07-16-2012 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by bcoop
07-15-2012 12:39 PM


Re: Source please
Hi BCoop,
Adminnemooseus tends to work the night shift, so I'll pick up where he left off.
Your message concludes with a request for more information, but we're going to interpret this as a debate proposal. Can your edit your message and change point 5b to actually say it's from Wikipedia, and include the link you just provided? Post another note to this thread when you're done editing. I have a busy day but I'll try to look in a couple times, and if the edit's been made I'll promote this to the Biological Evolution forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by bcoop, posted 07-15-2012 12:39 PM bcoop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by bcoop, posted 07-16-2012 8:06 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

bcoop
Junior Member (Idle past 4264 days)
Posts: 27
From: Maine
Joined: 07-14-2012


Message 6 of 7 (668024)
07-16-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Admin
07-16-2012 7:22 AM


Re: Source please
Thank you for considering my post. I have revised it to eliminate the reference and replace it with a general statement of my own. That should eliminate this issue and still allow the conversation to continue. Here is the revised post:
Short question or statement: There is not enough time available in the acknowledged age of the earth for the human genome to have formed. The hypothesis is that the math doesn’t work for DNA to have developed because the earth isn’t old enough.
Basis:
1. The acknowledged age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years, with the simplest life forms arriving only 2 billion years ago.
2. The human genome has approximately 3 billion base pairs of DNA arranged into 46 chromosomes.
3. Evolutionary theory holds that the human genome developed through a series of DNA replication errors.
4. The base pairs are the building blocks of DNA. If I follow evolutionary theory correctly, if there are 3 billion base pairs then it took 3 billion replication errors to arrive at the current DNA structure ( unless multiple simultaneous positive replication errors occurred).
5. If there was a successful DNA replication error each generation then it would take 3 billion reproductive generations to arrive where we are today.
Problems:
a. 3 billion generations would take 60 billion years if each female reproduced at the age of 20.
b. It is stated that life on earth is only 2 billion years old.
c. It would take longer if any of the errors were not advantageous. Most replication errors are not advantageous.
d. This assumes that each and every mutation was the exact necessary mutation needed in the right order. Each block of the genome has to be built in the right order. ( You don’t need the lens of the eye before the optic nerve exists for example).
e. It also assumes that each generation got the opportunity to successfully reproduce and didn’t die first or something.
f. The replication error of a single base pair out of the 3 billion pairs can result in a genetically transmitted disease. We need 3 billion positive consecutive errors with no negative errors along the way, or it would take even longer.
g. There is no provision at all here for natural selection because that would exponentially add much more time.
6. I am sure this has been studied and discussed — can you point me to literature or web sites where I can read about this issue?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Put in more blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 07-16-2012 7:22 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-17-2012 4:20 AM bcoop has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 7 of 7 (668087)
07-17-2012 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by bcoop
07-16-2012 8:06 AM


Message 6 moved to become message 1 of new topic
The open to debate topic is here.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bcoop, posted 07-16-2012 8:06 AM bcoop has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024