Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
72 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, Percy (Admin), Tangle (4 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,326 Year: 4,438/6,534 Month: 652/900 Week: 176/182 Day: 9/47 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there evolutionary reasons for reproduction?
misha
Member (Idle past 3867 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 106 of 136 (565960)
06-22-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by dennis780
06-06-2010 3:51 PM


dennis780 writes:

Since Apes have brown eyes, their alleles code for AA (A or a being dominant or recessive traits respectively). Since brown eyes are dominant, and apes are homogenius dominant A, it's not possible for humans to have any recessive colors of eyes, such as blue or green. Even if by random mutation, one member of a primative species (that led to humaniods today) did get a recessive (a), the odds of the offspring recieving that trait is still 0%, as the mate would be AA, and the other would be Aa, leaving only the possibility of AA (50%), or Aa (50%). The offspring (if coded for Aa from the respective mate) would have the same odds, 50/50, but eye colour would still be brown as 2 recessive genes are required (aa).

I don't believe you have thought this through at all. Either that or you are severely lacking in logical skills. You've forgotten to go one generation further.

1. In your hypothetical situation ALL apes have brown eyes and the allele combination AA.

2. You state that if ONE ape has a genetic mutation resulting in a recessive "a" allele that the probability of this genetic variation persisting is 0%. This is not only wrong its HORRIBLY wrong.

EX:

Generation 1: All AA except one mutant Aa
Generation 2: All AA parent pairs produce AA offspring. However, Aa parent produces 50% Aa offspring.
Generation 3: All AA parent pairs produce AA offspring. AA/Aa parent pairs produce 50% Aa offspring. However, if two of the Aa offspring from Generation 2 reproduce together they produce 25% AA, 50% Aa and 25% aa offspring.

So, the 3rd Generation is the first in which a recessive allele mutation could possibly show up. Granted it is more likely that it won't show up in the 3rd Generation but it is inevitable that it will show up. As long as Aa parents continue to reproduce they will produce 50% Aa offspring and so sooner or later the population will have enough Aa offspring for these to reproduce together, resulting in an "aa" offspring.

So, the probability of a recessive gene holding in a population and being expressed is not 0%. As long as Aa parents reproduce the probability of producing an "aa" offspring is close to 100%.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by dennis780, posted 06-06-2010 3:51 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by dennis780, posted 06-26-2010 2:18 PM misha has taken no action

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4016 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 107 of 136 (566738)
06-26-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Wounded King
06-22-2010 4:37 AM


Re: Look Ma, no enzymes!
"Should we also assume that you didn't know such mechanisms are far from perfect"

quote:
Cellular proofreading and error toe-checking mechanisms ensure near perfect fidelity for DNA replication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication

Wiki seems to be on my side.

"This is not really correct, both purines (A,G) and pyrimidines (C,T,U) can be produced from prebiotic precursors without the need for any enzymes"

This may be true, but you are missing the point. Without the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere, there wouldn't be an ozone (O3) layer, protecting the earth from harmful radiation.

And perhaps even though it is plausible that certain purines could exist, you would need more than two to form useful information in RNA. With only two nucleic acids (adenine and guanine), you still do not have a complete RNA, that accomplishes three main things:

1. Is stable (without ribonucleic acid)

2. Can be copied.

3. Contains useful information. (The only sequence possible with two acids is AG, or GA. However, Adenine and Guanine do not pair today, so this is unlikely. Regardless, you have no useful information).

"alternative chemical routes to RNA production which have yet to be properly explored"

Then I suppose we will get to them when the scientists do, hey? Can I say evidence for creation is the returning of God to judge the world? No, because it hasn't happened yet, so it's out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Wounded King, posted 06-22-2010 4:37 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Wounded King, posted 06-27-2010 6:11 AM dennis780 has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4016 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 108 of 136 (566740)
06-26-2010 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by misha
06-22-2010 8:34 AM


"In your hypothetical situation ALL apes have brown eyes and the allele combination AA."

This is not hypothetical, since all apes have brown eyes, which would suggest that any common ancestor to humans and apes did not have any such mutation.

"So, the probability of a recessive gene holding in a population and being expressed is not 0%. As long as Aa parents reproduce the probability of producing an "aa" offspring is close to 100%.

dennis780 writes:
Since Apes have brown eyes, their alleles code for AA (A or a being dominant or recessive traits respectively). Since brown eyes are dominant, and apes are homogenius dominant A, it's not possible for humans to have any recessive colors of eyes, such as blue or green. Even if by random mutation, one member of a primative species (that led to humaniods today) did get a recessive (a), the odds of the offspring recieving that trait is still 0%, as the mate would be AA, and the other would be Aa, leaving only the possibility of AA (50%), or Aa (50%). The offspring (if coded for Aa from the respective mate) would have the same odds, 50/50, but eye colour would still be brown as 2 recessive genes are required (aa).

I don't believe you have thought this through at all. Either that or you are severely lacking in logical skills. You've forgotten to go one generation further.

1. In your hypothetical situation ALL apes have brown eyes and the allele combination AA.

2. You state that if ONE ape has a genetic mutation resulting in a recessive "a" allele that the probability of this genetic variation persisting is 0%. This is not only wrong its HORRIBLY wrong.

EX:

Generation 1: All AA except one mutant Aa
Generation 2: All AA parent pairs produce AA offspring. However, Aa parent produces 50% Aa offspring.
Generation 3: All AA parent pairs produce AA offspring. AA/Aa parent pairs produce 50% Aa offspring. However, if two of the Aa offspring from Generation 2 reproduce together they produce 25% AA, 50% Aa and 25% aa offspring.

So, the 3rd Generation is the first in which a recessive allele mutation could possibly show up. Granted it is more likely that it won't show up in the 3rd Generation but it is inevitable that it will show up. As long as Aa parents continue to reproduce they will produce 50% Aa offspring and so sooner or later the population will have enough Aa offspring for these to reproduce together, resulting in an "aa" offspring.

So, the probability of a recessive gene holding in a population and being expressed is not 0%. As long as Aa parents reproduce the probability of producing an "aa" offspring is close to 100%."

If apes were monogamous, this would be true. But since most species of primate breed polygamously, the odds do not increase as quickly as in monogamous. Supposing Genetic mutated (Aa) was born, and passed on to offspring (Aa) and (Aa), (25% chance respectively...unlikely, but plausible). Offspring would breed outside family line with other (AA) in troop (25% respectively). During which, of course, (AA) continues to reproduce with (AA), 100% chance of (AA). The likelihood of passing (Aa) until (Aa) and (Aa) create (aa) is so minute, it hurts my brain to think about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by misha, posted 06-22-2010 8:34 AM misha has taken no action

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 109 of 136 (566743)
06-26-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by dennis780
06-06-2010 3:51 PM


Since Apes have brown eyes, their alleles code for AA...

All of 'em?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by dennis780, posted 06-06-2010 3:51 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Theodoric, posted 06-26-2010 3:15 PM Coragyps has taken no action
 Message 112 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 10:40 PM Coragyps has taken no action

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7316
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 110 of 136 (566744)
06-26-2010 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Coragyps
06-26-2010 2:56 PM


Heres another

I know it is an FLK(funny looking kid), but it is still an ape.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Coragyps, posted 06-26-2010 2:56 PM Coragyps has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 10:41 PM Theodoric has taken no action

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3334 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 111 of 136 (566774)
06-27-2010 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by dennis780
06-26-2010 1:54 PM


Re: Look Ma, no enzymes!
Wiki seems to be on my side.

Good for you, but their 'near perfect' is still far from perfect, if you see what I mean. As an error correcting mechanism it is very efficient, but the sheer volumes of genetic material involved mean that mutations are an inevitable result. There is plenty of research on the mutation rate, if you can show me any that says the mutation rate is 0 I'll be very surprised. In fact in Wikipedia the very words 'near perfect' are a link to the wiki article on mutation.

Without the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere, there wouldn't be an ozone (O3) layer, protecting the earth from harmful radiation.

Wow, you just totally changed the premise of your argument, nice goal post shift. The most commonly posited explanation for this is that life arose in the oceans, where a depth of ~30 metres would reduce the radiative effects to equivalent to those of the modern day.

And perhaps even though it is plausible that certain purines could exist

Did you miss the paper I linked to discussing pyrimidine synthesis?

3. Contains useful information. (The only sequence possible with two acids is AG, or GA. However, Adenine and Guanine do not pair today, so this is unlikely. Regardless, you have no useful information).

Well this is just nonsense, base pairing is a phenomenon of higher structural levels for RNA. Single stranded RNA doesn't need base pairing so any number of sequences composed of sequences of A's and G's is possible. Or is your argument that without a complementary partner there will be no folding to functional tertiary structures like hairpins? That might be a valid argument, if it were true that pyrimidines couldn't be formed, which it isn't.

Then I suppose we will get to them when the scientists do, hey?

Not really, you claimed that no chemical reactions to produce ribonucleic acids existed that didn't require enzymes. I gave you a reference to a paper full of non-enzymatic chemical routes, as well as one paper showing such a route in operation. So your claim is false, now you are switching claims, no one is going to be fooled by this into accepting that your initial claim was true.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by dennis780, posted 06-26-2010 1:54 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 10:59 PM Wounded King has taken no action

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4016 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 112 of 136 (575745)
08-20-2010 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Coragyps
06-26-2010 2:56 PM


Yes. Apes all have a dark-hued sclera, or various shades of brown eyes. As does the one you posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Coragyps, posted 06-26-2010 2:56 PM Coragyps has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by DC85, posted 08-21-2010 1:30 AM dennis780 has taken no action

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4016 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 113 of 136 (575746)
08-20-2010 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Theodoric
06-26-2010 3:15 PM


Re: Heres another
I'm actually with you on this one Theo. Thats one human looking monkey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Theodoric, posted 06-26-2010 3:15 PM Theodoric has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by bluescat48, posted 08-21-2010 12:03 AM dennis780 has taken no action

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4016 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 114 of 136 (575748)
08-20-2010 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Wounded King
06-27-2010 6:11 AM


Re: Look Ma, no enzymes!
"As an error correcting mechanism it is very efficient, but the sheer volumes of genetic material involved mean that mutations are an inevitable result."

I'm not sure if you're still talking about Macro evolution. Since micro evolution requires a loss of genetic code over time, and Macro requires the opposite. Errors and losses of genetic code are evidence for micro evolution, which is a documented scientific fact.

"Wow, you just totally changed the premise of your argument, nice goal post shift. The most commonly posited explanation for this is that life arose in the oceans, where a depth of ~30 metres would reduce the radiative effects to equivalent to those of the modern day."

Okay, but now you still have no oxygen to allow for any sort of chemical reaction...unless you're saying that the reaction would take place completely underwater??

"Not really, you claimed that no chemical reactions to produce ribonucleic acids existed that didn't require enzymes."

Still not clear enough yet hey?

Phosphate must have been, or must now come to have been, present at reasonable concentrations. (The concentrations in the oceans would have been very low, so we must think about special situations—evaporating lagoons and such. THEN, the phosphate must be activated in some way—for example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphate—so that phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible.

Now, since your chemical reaction is occuring underwater, now we have to consider other parameters, such as Ph levels, temperatures, etc. The reaction would have needed to take place outside harmful sunlight radiation.

Either way, no life. As I said before. You need phosphate, that would not have been present, and you need oxygen, which may or may not have been, either way, you have no life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Wounded King, posted 06-27-2010 6:11 AM Wounded King has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:28 AM dennis780 has taken no action
 Message 118 by Nij, posted 08-21-2010 2:48 AM dennis780 has taken no action
 Message 122 by Dr Jack, posted 08-27-2010 6:50 AM dennis780 has taken no action

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 3429 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 115 of 136 (575757)
08-21-2010 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by dennis780
08-20-2010 10:41 PM


Re: Heres another
I'm actually with you on this one Theo. Thats one human looking monkey

That is not a monkey it is an ape of the species Homo sapiens

unless you are claiming that humans, other apes, old world monkeys & new world monkeys are all monkeys, super class Anthropoidea

Edited by bluescat48, : need i say it again typo


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 10:41 PM dennis780 has taken no action

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 421 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 116 of 136 (575764)
08-21-2010 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by dennis780
08-20-2010 10:40 PM


Can't happen ever
Yes because it's 100% impossible for a species that has more genetic diversity and more populations then other related species to have other eye colors


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 10:40 PM dennis780 has taken no action

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 706 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 117 of 136 (575773)
08-21-2010 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by dennis780
08-20-2010 10:59 PM


Re: Look Ma, no enzymes!
Since micro evolution requires a loss of genetic code over time

Microevolution does not in any sense rely on a "loss of genetic code" over time. Rather, it relies on the differential reproductive success experienced by individuals in a population as a result of their varying heritable traits. And the reason their heritable traits vary, and they're not simply all clones of each other, is because of random mutation.

The individuals selected for, and the individuals selected against, all have the same amount of genetic code.

Okay, but now you still have no oxygen to allow for any sort of chemical reaction...unless you're saying that the reaction would take place completely underwater??

All chemical reactions performed by living things take place in water, which is why water is such a crucial component of life. Biochemistry is completely impossible until the components of the cell are in aqueous solution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 10:59 PM dennis780 has taken no action

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4129 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 118 of 136 (575780)
08-21-2010 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by dennis780
08-20-2010 10:59 PM


Re: Look Ma, no enzymes!
Since micro evolution requires a loss of genetic code over time, and Macro requires the opposite.

"Microevolution" doesn't require any loss of genetic material. You can have exactly the same number of chromosomes, which are just shifted around the place; you could have one gene location removed and another doubled to take its place; you can have insertions that result in more genetic information within one subspecies compared to another; you could have two subspecies that both get insertion mutations but in different places.

All of those (can) lead to separation into subspecies. All of them exist in addition to and beside deletions (lowering of information content). All of them are microevolution. Macroevolution is merely accumulated microevolution over time. As to the bit after that: microevolution is evidence for microevolution. The fact that it occurs is how we know it occurs.

Now that we've dealt with the "information only decreases" and "macroevolution doesn't exist" PRATTs...

Okay, but now you still have no oxygen to allow for any sort of chemical reaction...unless you're saying that the reaction would take place completely underwater??

What is water made of again? Oh, that's right: almost 90% oxygen by mass. And yes, the reactions would have initially occurred entirely submerged in water, just like a majority of all reactions in the body do now. And no, that is absolutely no barrier to the formation of complex molecules* let alone simple ones.

Phosphate must have been, or must now come to have been, present at reasonable concentrations. ... You need phosphate, that would not have been present, and you need oxygen, which may or may not have been, either way, you have no life.

Why is phosphate's presence a problem? This from one paper, found in a Google search for "volcanic phosphate":
quote:
This paper reviews the literature related to total and organic P (Po) levels present in both agricultural and forest soils from southern Chile. Different reports have demonstrated the high contents of total P (Pt) found in agricultural soils (1,000-3,000 mg kg-1) even in unfertilized soils.

emphasis added



From what else I could find on the subject, this is typical of any region with volcanism; more of 'this' and 'that', a little less of 'these' and 'those'.
So, volcanic soils and assumably other volcanic material contains phosphorous/phosphate in relatively large amounts.
AFAIK the most popular hypothesis for where life started was deep ocean, in areas with high volcanic activity. Meaning lots of heat and lots of stuff that life needs.

Which means that your statement viz. 'either way, no life' is based on erroneous information. The opposing statement, that "life could have arisen on its own" AKA abiogenesis remains very much a possibility that fits within the data available.

Any support or criticism of the above analysis welcome, provided it's based on facts and not "nuh-uh!".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 10:59 PM dennis780 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by barbara, posted 08-26-2010 9:51 AM Nij has replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4041 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 119 of 136 (576889)
08-26-2010 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Nij
08-21-2010 2:48 AM


Re: Look Ma, no enzymes!
Water is made of 90% oxygen so how could it be that there was no oxygen in early earth? The water at the deep vents does not have oxygen. How does this make sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Nij, posted 08-21-2010 2:48 AM Nij has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 08-26-2010 10:09 AM barbara has taken no action
 Message 121 by Nij, posted 08-26-2010 10:08 PM barbara has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33909
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 120 of 136 (576894)
08-26-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by barbara
08-26-2010 9:51 AM


Water and oxygen
barbara writes:

Water is made of 90% oxygen so how could it be that there was no oxygen in early earth?

Huh?

barbara writes:

The water at the deep vents does not have oxygen.

Huh?

Where are you getting this nonsense?

First, water is H2O.

Two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom.

But don't try to breath water, it don't work well for most humans.

The issue relative to the evolution of life on earth though is the availability of free oxygen in the atmosphere.

What I think you may be referring to is the amount of dissolved oxygen in water.

BUT...that still has nothing to do with the topic.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by barbara, posted 08-26-2010 9:51 AM barbara has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022