Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   junk dna
werd19
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 32 (9986)
05-19-2002 10:48 PM


understand first that im not a scientist or professor or anything, and also understand that im not trying to prove that evolution exists, there is enough evidence of that, its only a matter of if you choose to see it or not.
ok heres my idea. junk dna. we dont know much about it. in our dna we have start markers and stop markers. anything before the start, or after the stop, is overlooked. we think it doesnt serve a purpose. suppose that a strand of dna mutated and the start marker happened too soon, or the end marker too late. im sure it happens all the time. it is probably responsible for a lot of our diseases. but suppose it allowed the animal to better cope with its environment. naturally, the better adapted animal will mate the most. so the animal with the highest frequency of mutated dna mates, and passes on his dna to his offspring, which then mutate even more then he did, and over hundreds, or thousands, millions of years, you have a species of animal which decended from another species of animal that may or may not still exist, which is slightly different. note butterfly wing patterns, or people who are immune to a disease that foreigners are vulnerable to.
as long as we are misplacing start and stop markers, what is to say that the junk dna is a constant. it could change over generations. and when strands mutate, if the junk incorperated had beneficial effects, i would stick around through survival of the fittest, if it was not a good mutation, i would die out. now i know, diseases arent exactly dying out in the human race. however, humans have not been around very long. and perhaps more significant, we marry. this limits the natural selection process, because the fittest dont reproduce as much as they could, and the less fit reproduce more than they should. and considering that other animals are either immune or only slightly affected by most of the diseases that are a threat to humans, this seems pretty accurate to me. however if anyone who is a scientist or professor or anything, or anyone else who wants to comment on my idea, please feel free to do so.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 10:56 PM werd19 has replied
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 05-20-2002 10:16 AM werd19 has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 32 (9988)
05-19-2002 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by werd19
05-19-2002 10:48 PM


Creationists are in complete agreement with you werd. We do not doubt that this is one way to get speciation.
Does that mean that that is how mice and men and bats came about? Not at all.
In the end we think a look at the genomes will enable us all to see which genomes are due to this sort of simple loss and/or extension to exisiting genes (and thus advantage on some cases) vs the origin of genuine novelty.
The problem for evoltuion is explaining where the gene families came from. We all know that the genes within families could have evolved from the original member. As a professional molecular biologist who runs an academic lab I can tell you that the question is: Where did the protein families came from (which have distinct sequence/'fold')? There are about 100 of these families in the simplest organisms and thousands in man.
The key point is that creationists have no problem with speciation whatsoever. It is the origin of genuine novelty that we suspect never occurred naturalistically.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by werd19, posted 05-19-2002 10:48 PM werd19 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by werd19, posted 05-19-2002 11:18 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 8 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 05-20-2002 10:29 AM Tranquility Base has replied

werd19
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 32 (9989)
05-19-2002 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
05-19-2002 10:56 PM


im going to talk basic chemistry and such for a minute.
chaos is the natural state of order. it takes energy to create order, and it is assumed that an outside force is required to give the energy in the right places, or else your just taking something that is scattered randomly and scattering it more.
now the all powerful rule of probability. in an infinite amount of time, if something can happen, it will happen.
mix in a little big bang theory.
i propose that 2 black holes suck up all the matter that is involved in the big bang, then they suck eachother up. when their centers full of mass collide, an explosion happens, which more then enough energy to organize amino acids and such that could form life. but the organic material may not form life. however the big bang is persistant. it would get it right eventually.
still this doesnt account for bats and mice and whatnot only the existance of life. but our little single cell lifeform isnt a bat or a mouse, and it has to get there somehow or else we dont exist. the dna mutates and forms a mucus or membrane or something of that sort, so when the cell divides, instead of making 2 separate single cell lifeforms, it makes a single 2 celled life form, then mutates later to incorperate more and more cells. or maybe multiple single cell lifeforms huddle together for whatever reason and adapt to transmit chemicals between eachother and eventually a small organism is formed with specialized sectors of cells that eventually become organs and such. it isnt that far of a stretch. thus, bats and mice. and humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 10:56 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 11:25 PM werd19 has replied
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 05-20-2002 9:56 AM werd19 has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 32 (9990)
05-19-2002 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by werd19
05-19-2002 11:18 PM


Werd, anything can be imagined, the question is, is there a mechanism for the systematic acquisition of genetic noelty? The anwer is: no (not yet anyway). It's mainly hand waving and evoltuonary expectation currently.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by werd19, posted 05-19-2002 11:18 PM werd19 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by werd19, posted 05-20-2002 12:00 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 05-22-2002 1:46 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

werd19
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 32 (9995)
05-20-2002 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
05-19-2002 11:25 PM


a mechanism for the systematic acquisition of genetic noelty? im not sure what that is? but i think the answer is yes. you say 'not yet' but perhaps it is 'not anymore' instead. you come off as very closed minded to me. boats might float because of water displacement, but anything can be imagined, its mainly hand waving and displacementary expectation, or something along those lines. im not asking you to believe, just dont discount my thoughts so easily. i could do the same to yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 11:25 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 32 (10026)
05-20-2002 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by werd19
05-19-2002 11:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by werd19:

i propose that 2 black holes suck up all the matter that is involved in the big bang, then they suck eachother up. when their centers full of mass collide, an explosion happens, which more then enough energy to organize amino acids and such that could form life.

When 2 black holes collide, wouldn't you get 1 big one?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by werd19, posted 05-19-2002 11:18 PM werd19 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by KingPenguin, posted 05-22-2002 10:25 PM mark24 has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 7 of 32 (10027)
05-20-2002 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by werd19
05-19-2002 10:48 PM


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Makalow/sines.html
This site lists some known functions of "junk" DNA that you might find interesting.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by werd19, posted 05-19-2002 10:48 PM werd19 has not replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 8 of 32 (10028)
05-20-2002 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
05-19-2002 10:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Creationists are in complete agreement with you werd. We do not doubt that this is one way to get speciation. [/QUOTE]
Actually many creationists are in complete dissagreement with you here. There are no changes in species according to many at the ICR.
quote:
Does that mean that that is how mice and men and bats came about? Not at all.
In the end we think a look at the genomes will enable us all to see which genomes are due to this sort of simple loss and/or extension to exisiting genes (and thus advantage on some cases) vs the origin of genuine novelty.
OK, first, what do you mean by genuine novelty? I would like a bit of a clarification prior to getting into this area so that there is no miscommunication.
quote:
The problem for evoltuion is explaining where the gene families came from. We all know that the genes within families could have evolved from the original member. As a professional molecular biologist who runs an academic lab I can tell you that the question is: Where did the protein families came from (which have distinct sequence/'fold')? There are about 100 of these families in the simplest organisms and thousands in man.
That is the one good point that M. Behe made in his book Darwins Black box (I found his mechanistic attempts do validate his Irreducible Complexity concept to be erroneous at best and tiresome at worst). And , IMO, it actually may be more of a question of origens of life than of evolution. While I agree that the origens of some of the familes is a very interesting puzzle I do not see that large a difference between bacteria, archeobacteria and eukaryotic organisms w.r.t. many aspects of the architecture. The same general functional protein forms are found throughout life. IMO, I think that the answer to the protein families will be found more in the level of functional protein domains; ie the nucleotide fold found throughout and characteristic of the dehydrogenase family can also be found in many other enzymes not members of this family. [QUOTE] The key point is that creationists have no problem with speciation whatsoever. It is the origin of genuine novelty that we suspect never occurred naturalistically.
[/b]
Well, I have to disagree with you that creationists have no problem with speciation (see first paragraph above). On the second point I will await your definition of genuine novelty before I debate this point with you.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 10:56 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-20-2002 9:56 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 32 (10072)
05-20-2002 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
05-20-2002 10:29 AM


Nice to chat Taz.
I can guarentee you that ICR's (and AIG's) official stance is that speciation is kosher! There may be some older creationists who are still in the dark ages of creationism (
) but not ICR and AIG as a whole, that's for sure. By speciation they mean everything you mean but they will empahize that the mechanisms are microevoltuionary (mutations, copyings, recombinations, horizontal transfer) of existing genes. It was recently agreed at a creationist confernce that, scientifically, the Genesis 'kind' level is approximately the Linnean family level on the basis of micro/macro-evoltuionary considerations. For each Linnean family this will have to be specifically tested as we reel the genomes in. I'm sure this will iterate a bit.
Genuine novelty? I guess I mean new protein families, organs, biochemical pathways and systems that are gained (and not lost) - and not via horizaontal transfer. As a genomics researcher I of course know all about paralogs so I know there are variations on themes (which I believe are typically created although not necessarily) but here I am talking about genuinely novel protein families becasue it is easier to distinguish creation/evolution.
I agree with you that there is vast conservation of genes and systems throughout life but there is also the unmistakable addition of cellular/anatomical novelty that is almost always accomplished via addition of new protein families (and also the reuse of old ones - paralogs, I agree). Simple single celled organisms use only a repotoir of about 100 protein families (and yes that is an origin of life issue) but humans have several thousand distinct protein families.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 05-20-2002 10:29 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by werd19, posted 05-21-2002 12:18 AM Tranquility Base has replied

werd19
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 32 (10082)
05-21-2002 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
05-20-2002 9:56 PM


wow you guys know lots of words.
i didnt really mean for this to become a creation vs evolution thread because evolution exists whether you think so or not like youve been talking about its just a matter of how far you think it goes i really dont know and neither do you so this is pointless to argue. i simply had an idea and i thought id throw it out there and see if anyone has scientific stuff that says it could or could not happen.
i saw on discovery channel, the sea show i dont remember the name, i fish that walks on its fins as if they were legs, indeed they bent and moved like legs, and he could get up and swim too if he needed. there are fish that dont breath underwater, they have a special lung that lets them come to the surface and get a gulp of air. no not whales and dolphines those arent fish silly. betas (or fighting fish) is only one of them there are many more. it is widely beleived that single cell bacteria lived first in the ocean at underwater volcanic openings (i think this is supported by archeology and whatnot). ill let you do the math
and if you think it = speciation you forgot to carry the 2
so please just talk about the scientific facts that prove this could or could not happen if there are any

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-20-2002 9:56 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 12:34 AM werd19 has replied
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 05-22-2002 1:49 PM werd19 has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 32 (10086)
05-21-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by werd19
05-21-2002 12:18 AM


I'd be happy to explain what Taz and I were talking about without jargon (I agree we used a lot for good reason) but I won't bother unless you specifically ask becasue I don't think you're really interested (?).
You wont get many comments from either camp on your black hole stuff becasue it sounds even more far fetched than creationism
. You drew Taz and I to your thread becasue you did raise the fundamental question of this BBS - the origin of genuine novelty.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by werd19, posted 05-21-2002 12:18 AM werd19 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by werd19, posted 05-21-2002 10:36 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

werd19
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 32 (10151)
05-21-2002 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tranquility Base
05-21-2002 12:34 AM


ok black holes are centers of gravity correct? very strong gravity due to huge amounts of matter in very small volume? so shouldnt they react upon collision as other masses would? in an explosion? and because there is so incredibly much matter, which directly translates into equally enourmous amounts of energy, wouldnt it make an explosion as massive as the one were talking about in the big bang theory?
i have these kids in one of my classes and they like to talk about things that no one else like to listen to. and they were kidding around talking about if you crash 2 infinitely hard surfaces together it would create another diminsion and you would be the god of it. yes its just meant to be funny, but im thinkin 2 black holes w/ as much matter in them as were talking about would be pretty close to infintely hard.
i could always be wrong, i have said before that as soon as you think something it become false even if it was true before. so yeah. but still a thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 12:34 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 05-22-2002 10:23 AM werd19 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 32 (10199)
05-22-2002 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by werd19
05-21-2002 10:36 PM


Black holes are a bit off the original topic, so I'll try to keep this short, but I did want to comment because it contains a couple misconceptions and one extremely interesting question.
werd19 writes:

But I'm thinking 2 black holes w/ as much matter in them as were talking about would be pretty close to infintely hard.
The surface of a black hole is actually an event horizon. Information about events inside the black hole cannot escape outward through this horizon, but matter and energy are sucked relentlessly in. Anything impacting a black hole would pass through the event horizon into the interior of the black hole, though relativistic effects make direct observation of that event problematic.

Black holes are centers of gravity correct? Very strong gravity due to huge amounts of matter in very small volume? So shouldnt they react upon collision as other masses would? in an explosion?
Immanuel Velikovsky once wrote a book called Worlds in Collision, and I wish someone (a qualified someone) would write a book called Black Holes in Collision, because I think observation of such an event would be extremely revealing scientifically.
Imagine two normal, equally sized planets colliding head on, and you happen to be sitting at the point of impact. Just before impact, the net gravitational attraction you would feel would be zero, since each planet is exerting an equal yet opposite pull on you.
Now imagine two equally sized black holed colliding head on. At the moment of impact and at the point of impact the net gravity would be zero. The event horizons of the black holes would disappear at that particular point.
In reality this would neither be a sudden event nor an event local to the point of contact. As the black holes grew closer their event horizons would melt away and retreat from the area around the point of contact because the net gravity at the region between has an escape velocity less than C. What would happen? Would matter explode outward from this region before the black holes ever contacted one another? Or would the matter inside the black holes shift quickly away from the point of contact and remain within the black holes? Would the net approach velocity of the black holes be a significant factor? Since the holes melt away from the point of contact, how do they ever combine?
Anyone know?
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by werd19, posted 05-21-2002 10:36 PM werd19 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 05-22-2002 10:29 AM Percy has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 14 of 32 (10200)
05-22-2002 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
05-22-2002 10:23 AM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 05-22-2002 10:23 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 05-22-2002 7:03 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 32 (10203)
05-22-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
05-19-2002 11:25 PM


That IS the answer given by Gilbert Gottlieb in Individual Development & Evolution : The Genesis of Novel Behavior but if one ever bother to try to corrleate all of my own individual posts you will find that we ALREADY posses the tools and an answer to all the details of actual science available if individuals will not remain fixed or fixated to Lewontin's late 80s position. The is the reason Provine never returns my calls and Hopkins refuses to let me retire to breeding his "guppies". I had intended to do this as a book review and may i will also but seems that the info is already needed here.
Gottlieb notices that he has no mechanism and the idiotsynchornzezs of my part cobbled cardinality still is to much in the long end of dispersal to have been picked up in Kansas I guess that it should be clear I will find the time to show how at least in thought my grandfather passed on Waddingtion's idea of genetic assimilation to me however the techinicalities of my position asserts in fact that developemental canalization does not exist.
The particular individual development I do may be wrong but the blocking me from data access to attempt to find different geneotyopes that may or may not be differentially fit was also wrong. The cocept of neophneogensis is fairly clear to me and it was the recognition of no controls for this at Oxford Univeristy England that in 88 I absolutely decided not to work there. The book came out in 92 From Oxford by which time without allowing me to comment on topobiology I was writ into Croizat's lunatic assylum and I was trying by this time to get out of Criminal Charges for the miscarrige formerly in the civial use of law.
More later. There is a work in progress and there is not only a statistical refinemnet that drives the motivated knowledge working.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 11:25 PM Tranquility Base 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