Graeme said:You are correct we can see things that look as if it is between us and "apes" (not really apes but you get my point)
but there should be a at least SOME continual evidance.
I would not take the gradualist approach to evolution either, but then we should see spurts of an abundance of transitional species during those time periods of quick evolution.
Graeme said:Lets simplify this argument for a moment and just talk about converting amino acids in to an enzyme. An enzyme which the DNA depends on to survive.
First using transcribing RNA is formed from DNA, then the RNA and a chain of amino acids enter a Ribosome, the chain of amino acids sorts aligns itself with the RNA to form a protein chain, which then leaves the ribosome and is then folded at which time it can then provide the necessary service to keep the DNA alive.
You see to create the enzymes you must have DNA, but to have the DNA you must have the enzymes. The enzymes have been proven to be unable to form without the use of DNA. It is well accepted that the DNA cannot exist without the enzymes it creates.
Maybe someone could address this.
The enzymes have been proven to be unable to form without the use of DNA. It is well accepted that the DNA cannot exist without the enzymes it creates.
In modern organisms, genetic information is stored on DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid) in units called genes.
Genes code for proteins, which are responsible for the various activities that make a cell function.
Some proteins, called enzymes, perform the chemical reactions that run the cell. One group of enzymes, the DNA polymerases, make DNA.
The information for making those enzymes is stored in the DNA as a gene.
Some scientists believe that RNA, not proteins or DNA, acted as starting material for life. Therefore, finding the evolutionary origin of proteins and DNA is tricky as each requires the other for its own synthesis-which came first? That's where Cech and Altman come in. They studied RNA (ribose nucleic acid), a close chemical relative of DNA:
When proteins are made from the information in DNA, a working RNA copy of the gene is made for use by ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell. Therefore RNA, like DNA, stores genetic information, and, like proteins, it also performs chemical reactions.
Bringing RNA into the picture solves the chicken and egg problem. RNA can be both chicken and egg.
What this means to evolutionary biologists is that life could well have BEGUN with organisms made largely of RNA.
This idea of an 'RNA world' has been debated since the 1960's, but Cech and Altman's discovery has convinced most scientists that it is at least possible.
It is now known that RNA is at the heart of many of the basic functions in the cell, and probably evolved in the RNA world.
Jay said:I think the topic is interesting though.....I like to hear people banter back and forth about the orgins of life.
Graeme said:1. the science behind the technologies has always been there, it just had to be discovered. The fact that now-a-days we live in a society which allows the devotion of ones life to a particular science or technology without worrying about what is for dinner is what accounts for our exponential leap in science. This also doesn't really make the massive slow down in evolution make sense. Over the last 65,000 - 150,000 years we don’t' see any advancement in evolution in any species. I have already given the percentage of difference there should be in contrast to previous time gaps and evolutionary spread.
2. well this would be acceptable if it wasn't for the fact that some creatures we see over a period of millions of years, and yet they are the same from when we first see them in the fossil record until we see them last in the fossil record.. We SHOULD see at least some transitional species buried with them. Also it is interesting to note that the fossil record as a timeline is pretty complete, there are not really HUGE gaps of time (except way way back)
3. I love the subject, even if the theory part might not be correct the data is pretty awesome. I find mtDNA to be quite interesting as well.
This is convenient, but actually there is no evidance that they didn't always exist. Simply that we see them now because we can kill off the other ones.
although I could be wrong about that!!!
even if they have mutated to survive we can't say that is any different than people getting taller and stronger over the years.
Jo Canadian said:dekhqonbacha said:No, He is Jew.
:scratch:
dekhqonbacha said:Jo Canadian said:dekhqonbacha said:No, He is Jew.
:scratch:
What? Isn't he?
Jay said:dekhqonbacha said:Jo Canadian said:dekhqonbacha said:No, He is Jew.
:scratch:
What? Isn't he?
Fact or fiction, it seems irrelevant to the conversation....doesn't it?
s_lone said:I'm no biologist and I would like this question answered:
How is genetic information transmitted? Do we understand exactly how genes are transmitted from one generation to another? Is there a random factor in the equation?
If there is a random factor, we have to ask ourselves if there really is such a thing as randomness. I believe this is a key issue to this debate.
I tend to be annoyed when scientists say that this or that happens "randomly"... To me, they are simply filling gaps in their incomplete theories. it's much too easy to use the principle of randomness to explain what is not yet understood.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060614-butterfly.html
Two Butterfly Species Evolved Into Third, Study Finds
James Owen
for National Geographic News
June 14, 2006
A butterfly species from South America has been revealed as nature's answer to Frankenstein's monster, scientists say.
New research shows the insect was originally created from two different butterflies in an evolutionary process many biologists didn't think possible.
The scientists arrived at this conclusion by successfully re-creating the butterfly in the lab, using "second-hand parts" from two related species.
Animals are thought usually to evolve in the opposite manner, when a single species gradually splits into two over many generations.
The team behind the discovery describes how it re-created the black, red, and yellow Heliconius heurippa butterfly in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature.
.........
dekhqonbacha said:Jay said:Fact or fiction, it seems irrelevant to the conversation....doesn't it?dekhqonbacha said:What? Isn't he?Jo Canadian said::scratch:dekhqonbacha said:No, He is Jew.
yeah, we are talking about the cartoons. Where "intelligent design" and "science" ara claiming that he is on the their team. I'm saying that he isn't in either team. :wink: