|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 12/12/2005 : 02:24:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
...What genetic studies are you refering to? most of the "observable evolutionary changes we see in rapidly multiplying organisms." that I can think of are only microevolution, but i may have missed somthing. what exactly are you refering to?
Everyone arguing for ID and for the claim that evolution has not yet been proved can only do so by ignoring all the advances in genetic science and research. The field of genetic science has advanced well beyond the point where evolution is the least bit still in question.
Without writing a dissertation here discussing the advances I speak of let me just summarize. We no longer are looking at bones and fossils to put the evolutionary tree bush in order. Instead, we can see the actual building plans. We can see where any change occurred you wish to investigate.
You can find how that eye the IDers claim to be irreducibly complex evolved from a single cell into both compound insect eyes and animal eyes and you can trace the path of the random genetic mutations it took to get there.
We know how wings evolved from limbed animals and what mutations and steps along the way were needed. And, we can trace how selection pressures acting on random mutations led to that limb becoming a wing.
There are no more gaps and missing links in evolutionary theory other than the ones we haven't had time to map out. The code has been broken. And to test that we are correct, genes have been successfully manipulated with the expected consequences resulting.
To think evolution has yet to be proved is just absurd. |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 02:33:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by UncleJ
Something to keep in mind when discussing evolution of bacteria vs. evolution of animals is that bacteria have multiple mechanisms to take up DNA from the environment or other bacteria.
Therefore the evolution of bacterial species is mechanistically different from animals in that it does not rely as heavily on mutation.
Take this along with the rapid growth and non-sexual reproduction, and the parallels between bacterial and animal evolution get harder to make.
Bacteria and viruses have at least 4 ways of mixing genes with results similar to sexual reproduction.
Flu virus reassortment has been in the news lately. Plasmids and viruses transfer genetic material. And occasionally bacteria consume genetic material and incorporate it rather than digest it.
But if you are claiming that because bacteria and other single celled organisms evolve it offers no evidence multicelled sexually reproducing organism do as well, then you are mistaken. Some mechanisms are the same and some differ. We can take the yeast organisms and splice animal genes into them to produce animal proteins. Yeast genes are studied because they can be isolated and their function determined. Then we look at the equivalent gene in humans and low and behold, we learn what that human gene does.
So I don't quite get your point. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 02:50:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
...And polio has returned for an encore engagement.
The polio issue is not a matter of drug resistance, but rather ignorance about vaccine facts.
A fair number of Indonesians and Africans followed a rumor that the vaccine was making Muslim women sterile so they stopped vaccinating their kids. Naturally, when you do that, you get a new polio epidemic and that's what has occurred.
We've had an occasional problem with the live polio vaccine strain. Once it passes through a person, it mutates and can make the next person infected ill with polio. In countries where vaccine compliance is high and cases of wild polio eliminated they now use only the killed vaccine.
If cases increase, one uses live vaccine because it is easier to give to more people faster. They only need swallow one dose as opposed to getting 3 injections over a period of time. A dose of oral polio vaccine protects you from vaccine virus infection. It is only the unvaccinated that have risk of infection with either the wild or the vaccine strain.
And one more tidbit if you aren't bored and have stopped reading this anyway...Vaccines do not promote drug resistance though rarely it can still occur. Vaccines stop organisms from multiplying in the first place. There is a 99% reduction give or take in the number of multiplying organisms that have any opportunity to divide and therefore mutate. In other words vaccines leave no organisms from which selection pressures can act upon. While you would think perhaps a mutation could get out and infect new hosts the same way a mutation could avoid an antimicrobial in the infected host, but there is another factor working. You need an infectious dose to be transferred in order to get infected and that is rarely going to be just one single organism.
|
|
|
|
UncleJ
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2005 : 21:50:09 [Permalink]
|
Let me preface all of this by stating that I am a staunch believer in evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
So I don't quite get your point.
The main point was to offer a partial agreement with Dude's statement:
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Microorganisms are in a different kingdom than us animals. Personally I think they should be treated differently. The evolution of new, and novel, metabolic pathways for carbon fixation (i.e. the nylon bug) is significant.
Beskeptigal, in your response you seem to have lumped bacteria, viruses, and yeast together. Did you mean to do this?
These are very different organisms from different kingdoms
Viral evolution is even more problematic than bacterial evolution as a model for animal evolution.
I agree there are valuable lessons to be learned from bacterial genetics but I also believe that the parallels between bacterial evolution and animal evolution can be stretched too far.
Yeast are fungi and have more mechanistically in common with animal evolution than bacteria, but I would argue that the following statement is a vast oversimplification.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Yeast genes are studied because they can be isolated and their function determined. Then we look at the equivalent gene in humans and low and behold, we learn what that human gene does.
I guess that my overall point is that while observing evolution in bacteria, viruses, and yeast provides valuable insights, care must be taken when applying the findings to animal evolution.
|
"The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." - F. Magellan
"I can't be a missionary! I don't even believe in Jebus!" - H. Simpson |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 03:12:53 [Permalink]
|
I was not trying to distinguish the finer points of evolution, merely that genetic research has taken us well beyond the "it isn't proved" phase that most IDers and even some not well informed persons seem to be stuck in.
Living organisms are built with DNA and RNA blueprints/maps/plans whatever you want to label it as. Mutations occur naturally. The DNA/RNA is redundant and organized in a way that facilitates mutations being successful. Selection pressures give certain organisms advantages. Selection pressures themselves change. End result is the evolutionary process that created all the life forms that have come, gone and remain on Earth.
When you speak of care to be taken when applying the findings, well sure if you want to talk about the difference in the basic building plans including fetal development for a multicelled organism vs single celled and if you want to discuss random mutation vs exchange of genetic material and how different organisms do that, but that isn't where I was going. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
