Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Thank you. There are many that understand this concept better than I do and those comments are very welcome.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
An evolution education thread. Or how we know evolution is a fact.
- Thread starter Subduction Zone
- Start date
I am challenged to find a way to describe my awe at your grasp of science.
And I can't help but remember this is in a Science and Technology forum. Do you actually have anything science-based to say?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Earlier I said that both theories and hypotheses need to be testable, or falsifiable, to qualify as a theory or hypothesis. So how could we test evolution? One example would be a failure of phylogeny. If the evolutionary history of a major group was shown to be false it would refute the theory. One such example would be finding a "Pegasus" or a horse with feathers, let alone wings. The evolution of feather can be observed in dinosaurs in the fossil record. The first feathers were simple single strands. Then they became more complex as plumes, very similar to today's down that birds still have. Then the more complex vaned feathers with barbs and barbules that are found on the bodies of modern birds evolved and last the flight feathers that are found on wings.
The molecular evolution of feathers with direct evidence from fossils
Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia
The first article is a bit more technical, the Wiki article gets the basic idea across.
Back to how a feathered horse would refute evolution (assuming it was not a product of modern genetic engineering). The feather itself evolved after the split in the rather distant past between what became mammals and what became dinosaurs and then birds. Horses are mammals and have no history of feathers in their past. Where the feathers came from would be a question that is not only unanswerable, it would demonstrate a major flaw in the system.
And let's not conflate the appearance of a structure that would refute evolution with something that merely looks like a structure. For example the duck billed platypus was first thought to be a hoax because of the "bill". Dissection of real samples of the beastie revealed that which a photograph could not. The bill only had a surface similarity to the bills of ducks When it was dissected it was found to be a very different structure. Today we can go even further and check out individual genes. If a series of genes can be shown to have evolved after a split it would be very detrimental to find them where they did not belong.
That is an example of an ongoing test. It is sometimes simplified to a "finding a Precambrian bunny rabbit" would refute evolution. But there are much more recent examples such as the "feather test".
An example of a test that could have refuted evolution, but it passed was the fusion of Chromosome 2 in humans. We have one less Chromosome pairs than other great apes have. So either all three other great apes had independent splitting of chromosomes (highly unlikely) or one of our chromosomes joined with another one in the past. DNA sequencing demonstrated that the latter was the case. A bit of background. Chromosomes have telomeres at the ends of the chromosomes and a centromere at, you guessed it, somewhere in the center of a chromosome. Our Chromosome 2 has vestigial telomeres in the middle of it and a vestigial centromere as well:
Chromosome 2 - Wikipedia
That is what the theory of evolution predicted and it was what was found in 2005. Failure to find this would have been strong evidence that we are not related to other great apes.
There are other tests as well, but this should be enough for now. The theory of evolution is falsifiable.
The molecular evolution of feathers with direct evidence from fossils
Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia
The first article is a bit more technical, the Wiki article gets the basic idea across.
Back to how a feathered horse would refute evolution (assuming it was not a product of modern genetic engineering). The feather itself evolved after the split in the rather distant past between what became mammals and what became dinosaurs and then birds. Horses are mammals and have no history of feathers in their past. Where the feathers came from would be a question that is not only unanswerable, it would demonstrate a major flaw in the system.
And let's not conflate the appearance of a structure that would refute evolution with something that merely looks like a structure. For example the duck billed platypus was first thought to be a hoax because of the "bill". Dissection of real samples of the beastie revealed that which a photograph could not. The bill only had a surface similarity to the bills of ducks When it was dissected it was found to be a very different structure. Today we can go even further and check out individual genes. If a series of genes can be shown to have evolved after a split it would be very detrimental to find them where they did not belong.
That is an example of an ongoing test. It is sometimes simplified to a "finding a Precambrian bunny rabbit" would refute evolution. But there are much more recent examples such as the "feather test".
An example of a test that could have refuted evolution, but it passed was the fusion of Chromosome 2 in humans. We have one less Chromosome pairs than other great apes have. So either all three other great apes had independent splitting of chromosomes (highly unlikely) or one of our chromosomes joined with another one in the past. DNA sequencing demonstrated that the latter was the case. A bit of background. Chromosomes have telomeres at the ends of the chromosomes and a centromere at, you guessed it, somewhere in the center of a chromosome. Our Chromosome 2 has vestigial telomeres in the middle of it and a vestigial centromere as well:
Chromosome 2 - Wikipedia
That is what the theory of evolution predicted and it was what was found in 2005. Failure to find this would have been strong evidence that we are not related to other great apes.
There are other tests as well, but this should be enough for now. The theory of evolution is falsifiable.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Conscience. Science. Human self expressed belief first.I am challenged to find a way to describe my awe at your grasp of science.
And I can't help but remember this is in a Science and Technology forum. Do you actually have anything science-based to say?
Human natural. Human observation natural know in science as first law observation that two human parents had sex and own my connection human to being human.
Natural observation first as science by present natural human. Humans first law in science not an egotist.
Theist quotes not being a human as a destroyer mentality.
Human warning...they seem just like us. They seem like everyday humans. Listen to their words explaining how you don't exist as they try to coerce you that they are "a" God in person.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science a human thinking telling you you don't exist as he is as a self one egotist. Thinks observed his first law as a human by a human. Science status. Natural first observation first. I see he says.
You do exist as his idea number two whilst he theories for you not to exist.
Theory in space all bodies burning consuming move by gas release. Came from a sun are not a God a planet. Held fixed mass.
Some release gas slowly others hit as burning mass.
Big bang collider theist one of two choices.
Brother says all bodies in space still being de particularised. Millions of years ago earths saviours is now just particles.
Says to his god brother in science on earth building up on earth is from fossil to layering is not any sun theory.
New saviours come as large giants.
You choose by collision which one you want to give us.
A big cold stone or an on fire stone. Collision in science is first law from sun.
Collision created particle separation on earth as dusts. He says his law first is higher than nuclear plant using dusts.
Science man's choice to destroy life the teaching to new evolutionists the same science of God theists.
Creationists and evolutionists the same theist.
Sorry, I can't read your stuff anymore -- you don't actually say anything that means anything.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Evolutionist says to earth God theist. You want your machine taken from earth mass to own history instant stone snap freeze instead of God earth.
Life saviour ice.
A long time ago human invented artefacts with machine parts were instantly snap frozen as ice was instantly melted. Stone however was sealed. How you sent us to hell as humans.
Earth bowels opened.
What you remember about machines owning stone freeze first.
Theory today I want my machine to be saved by atmospheric spirit saviour instead of life.
Ice saviour the answer.
Science proved the instant presence biological cell change was the cell existing instantly owned a baby.
Can't argue with what science proved each species is self owned. Was instant for each species.
Life saviour ice.
A long time ago human invented artefacts with machine parts were instantly snap frozen as ice was instantly melted. Stone however was sealed. How you sent us to hell as humans.
Earth bowels opened.
What you remember about machines owning stone freeze first.
Theory today I want my machine to be saved by atmospheric spirit saviour instead of life.
Ice saviour the answer.
Science proved the instant presence biological cell change was the cell existing instantly owned a baby.
Can't argue with what science proved each species is self owned. Was instant for each species.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Alright. Not too many questions yet. Perhpas that is because creationists do not wish to learn. I hope that is not the case. At any rate lets go over one very strong piece of evidence for human evolution. I may have already mentioned that paleontology is not the strongest evidence for evolution. It is only the most obvious evidence to amateurs. One particular fossil tends to drive creationists mad. That being Lucy or AL288-1. She was an Australopithecus afarensis. She was not the first Australopithecine ever found, nor was she the last. Many creationists make the error of thinking that she was the only one ever found. What made her unique is that there is high percentage of her body that was fossilized. And since humans have bilateral symmetry it allowed people to reconstruct roughly 80% of her skeleton. The reason that she drives creationists nuts is that she is clearly an "ape" and yet she is definitely bipedal.
Her bipedal nature is shown by her hips:
Those lone make her bipedal nature rather obvious. But it is also supported by her knees, Feet (well not Lucy's feet, but the feet of other Australopithecines) footprints that time and location wise appear to be those of Australopithecines. And lastly the angle of the top of the spine with the head.
Early Hominin Evolution: Analysis of Early Hominids
Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy's species
Lucy is the "missing link" that creationists demand. We can see that she has both traits that were thought to be solely human and traits that were thought to be "ape".
So, any questions about Lucy out there?
Her bipedal nature is shown by her hips:
Those lone make her bipedal nature rather obvious. But it is also supported by her knees, Feet (well not Lucy's feet, but the feet of other Australopithecines) footprints that time and location wise appear to be those of Australopithecines. And lastly the angle of the top of the spine with the head.
Early Hominin Evolution: Analysis of Early Hominids
Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy's species
Lucy is the "missing link" that creationists demand. We can see that she has both traits that were thought to be solely human and traits that were thought to be "ape".
So, any questions about Lucy out there?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Looking at bones a long time dead is the science answer.
Between a healthy bio living body owning living cells looking back at dead information you are trying to mathematical equate how to take us back to your scientific identified memories of I caused it. Science radiation effects thesis....back.
By Moses genesis details. Mutations.
Claiming it was the beginning of new life.
Our life not beginning in your science thesis says one hundred years ago a C 100 quote human healthy life is dead also.
Sex whilst living as living bones not dead bones had human babies. They grew into adults and had babies.
Sex the answer is not evolution.
Reason change of body by acts of sex. Mutated humans living today with bone deformed and cell deformed are just as changed today as a human in its past life. Theoried looks like a human not quite a human.
To identify reasoning not a correct human bone body structure. Medical science as an analogy.
2012 outcome radiation stopped falling in with a human law we banned Alchemy science beginnings to any practice science said atmospheric voiding taking and holding radiation in space was removing humans de evolution into non health.
Always use human as a human in inferred medical advice. Old bones.
Radiation does not own a calculus it is a cause effect.
Maths cannot calculate the infinite it only calculate a mass gain.
Self consuming was an ancient space law that was stopped in space causes as gods form as held mass was no longer consuming a and the teaching.
Is not evolution. It is cooling. Cause effect law.
Water pretty basic teaching does not evolve.
We live as high percentile water body as a human.
Between a healthy bio living body owning living cells looking back at dead information you are trying to mathematical equate how to take us back to your scientific identified memories of I caused it. Science radiation effects thesis....back.
By Moses genesis details. Mutations.
Claiming it was the beginning of new life.
Our life not beginning in your science thesis says one hundred years ago a C 100 quote human healthy life is dead also.
Sex whilst living as living bones not dead bones had human babies. They grew into adults and had babies.
Sex the answer is not evolution.
Reason change of body by acts of sex. Mutated humans living today with bone deformed and cell deformed are just as changed today as a human in its past life. Theoried looks like a human not quite a human.
To identify reasoning not a correct human bone body structure. Medical science as an analogy.
2012 outcome radiation stopped falling in with a human law we banned Alchemy science beginnings to any practice science said atmospheric voiding taking and holding radiation in space was removing humans de evolution into non health.
Always use human as a human in inferred medical advice. Old bones.
Radiation does not own a calculus it is a cause effect.
Maths cannot calculate the infinite it only calculate a mass gain.
Self consuming was an ancient space law that was stopped in space causes as gods form as held mass was no longer consuming a and the teaching.
Is not evolution. It is cooling. Cause effect law.
Water pretty basic teaching does not evolve.
We live as high percentile water body as a human.
Aletheia Athanatos
Member
I wrote a 4 part blog entry about one of my favourite pieces of evidence a while back. If I can dig it out, I'll post it.
Aletheia Athanatos
Member
Human Evolution, a guest post (part 1 - code of computers) - Journals - CafeMom
The Code of Computers
(Comment Lines)
Line 1 : Print "Hello World"
Line 2 : Print "Testing"
Line 3 : /*
Line 4 : Print "Testing"
Line 5 : Print "1"
Line 6 : Print "2"
Line 7 : */
Line 8 : Print "3"
Line 9 : Print "Done."
If you run this computer program, it prints on your screen:
Hello World
Testing
3
Done.
The reason it does this, is because the thing that reads in the program line by line and decides what to do with the lines (called an "interpreter") knows that it must ignore anything that appears inside the /* and the */
The ignored lines are called "comments" and if you look at a big computer program which has been changed by many different programmers over several years, because their bosses keep changing the requirements of what the program should do, you can use these to trace back the history of the program, from its current working form, to deduce how it started out as a much smaller simpler program, and the path it took with bits being added or commented out, to achieve the present state.
Reverse Engineering
Sometimes, when a program is very successful and the company charges a lot for it, a rival company will create a copy by a process known as "reverse-engineering". They can't see the source code, but they can see the program in action. So they set one team to write down a design document, which says precisely what the current version of the program does in practice. Then they give that design document to a new 'clean' team, who write a new program to exactly match that specification.
Occasionally the original company will sue the rival, claiming that they sent in a mole to steal their source code, and the issue goes to court. The judge compares the source code of the original to the source code of the rival, and tries to decide if the latter was stolen, or was produced properly by reverse-engineering. It turns out that this is quite easy for the judge to do because, while the functionality of the programs is identical, when you're able to see the source code, you can look for comments. The original has a whole baggage of code that used to be functional but is now commented out, while a proper reverse-engineered copy is much cleaner.
The reverse-engineered copy of our example program at the top would likely be:
Line 1 : Print "Hello World"
Line 2 : Print "Testing"
Line 3 : Print "3"
Line 4 : Print "Done."
Bit Rot
Computer programs are subject to entropy. People make mistakes when editing them and change bits at random. If the part that gets changed is vital to the smooth running of the application, then the end users notice, report it as a bug, and it gets fixed (hopefully!). But if the part that gets changed is in a comment, the error is likely to remain in the code, until such time as the boss says she wants that piece of functionality again, the lines are uncommented, and the poor programmer in charge discovers that they've suffered "bit rot" - they no longer work, and contain errors that were not previously there when he first commented them out. While individual errors are introduced randomly, the average rate is fairly constant, so if a large enough piece of code was commented out, you can actually make a pretty good estimate of how long ago it was since the code was last in use, by what percentage of the lines now have errors in them.
So, for instance, after being commented out for a few years, the program might look like:
Line 1 : Print "Hello World"
Line 2 : Print "Testing"
Line 3 : /*
Line 4 : Printeger "Tewasp sting"
Line 5 : Printeger "1"
Line 6 : Printeger "2"
Line 7 : */
Line 8 : Print "3"
Line 9 : Print "Done."
It would no longer do what it was intended to do, but if you have a working copy available, you can see how one derived from the other. You could establish ancestry.
The Code of Computers
(Comment Lines)
Line 1 : Print "Hello World"
Line 2 : Print "Testing"
Line 3 : /*
Line 4 : Print "Testing"
Line 5 : Print "1"
Line 6 : Print "2"
Line 7 : */
Line 8 : Print "3"
Line 9 : Print "Done."
If you run this computer program, it prints on your screen:
Hello World
Testing
3
Done.
The reason it does this, is because the thing that reads in the program line by line and decides what to do with the lines (called an "interpreter") knows that it must ignore anything that appears inside the /* and the */
The ignored lines are called "comments" and if you look at a big computer program which has been changed by many different programmers over several years, because their bosses keep changing the requirements of what the program should do, you can use these to trace back the history of the program, from its current working form, to deduce how it started out as a much smaller simpler program, and the path it took with bits being added or commented out, to achieve the present state.
Reverse Engineering
Sometimes, when a program is very successful and the company charges a lot for it, a rival company will create a copy by a process known as "reverse-engineering". They can't see the source code, but they can see the program in action. So they set one team to write down a design document, which says precisely what the current version of the program does in practice. Then they give that design document to a new 'clean' team, who write a new program to exactly match that specification.
Occasionally the original company will sue the rival, claiming that they sent in a mole to steal their source code, and the issue goes to court. The judge compares the source code of the original to the source code of the rival, and tries to decide if the latter was stolen, or was produced properly by reverse-engineering. It turns out that this is quite easy for the judge to do because, while the functionality of the programs is identical, when you're able to see the source code, you can look for comments. The original has a whole baggage of code that used to be functional but is now commented out, while a proper reverse-engineered copy is much cleaner.
The reverse-engineered copy of our example program at the top would likely be:
Line 1 : Print "Hello World"
Line 2 : Print "Testing"
Line 3 : Print "3"
Line 4 : Print "Done."
Bit Rot
Computer programs are subject to entropy. People make mistakes when editing them and change bits at random. If the part that gets changed is vital to the smooth running of the application, then the end users notice, report it as a bug, and it gets fixed (hopefully!). But if the part that gets changed is in a comment, the error is likely to remain in the code, until such time as the boss says she wants that piece of functionality again, the lines are uncommented, and the poor programmer in charge discovers that they've suffered "bit rot" - they no longer work, and contain errors that were not previously there when he first commented them out. While individual errors are introduced randomly, the average rate is fairly constant, so if a large enough piece of code was commented out, you can actually make a pretty good estimate of how long ago it was since the code was last in use, by what percentage of the lines now have errors in them.
So, for instance, after being commented out for a few years, the program might look like:
Line 1 : Print "Hello World"
Line 2 : Print "Testing"
Line 3 : /*
Line 4 : Printeger "Tewasp sting"
Line 5 : Printeger "1"
Line 6 : Printeger "2"
Line 7 : */
Line 8 : Print "3"
Line 9 : Print "Done."
It would no longer do what it was intended to do, but if you have a working copy available, you can see how one derived from the other. You could establish ancestry.
Aletheia Athanatos
Member
The Code of Life
This is a eukaryotic cell (image from gene therapy review):
The human body contains about 10,000,000,000,000 of them, each one is only 0.01 mm in length but it contains an immensely varied chemical soup. Everything the human body does is controlled by the way the cells move or the chemicals the cells release; and that's determined by which chemicals in the soup react with each other.
The cell controls which reactions happen in two ways. Firstly it uses membranes to divide the cell into different 'reaction chambers'. And secondly it uses proteins as catalysts. Each specific catalyst has a dented surface that exactly matches the particular chemicals in the soup that it wants to react. Without the catalyst the chemicals bump together at random, only reacting if they happen to hit each other facing in exactly the right direction. With the catalyst the correct orientation happens every time, and the speed of the reaction is increased by a factor of a million or even a billion.
But it wasn't until 1953 that we cracked the code of how the cell decides which protein catalysts to make, or where it stores the information.
Locating the Code
It was known that the nucleus of the cell contained structures called chromosomes (chromosome images from Wikipedia):
Humans have 23 pairs of them:
In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick discovered that our chromosomes are made up of DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (DNA), arranged in a double-helix structure (image from Wikipedia). Read more about Watson & Crick, the basics of DNA and how it "does it's thing" in these past journal posts.
And that genetic information is encoded in this twisted ladder using the sequence of 'base pairs' that make up the rungs of the ladder. There are 4 base pairs, which are known by their initial letters: T, C, A & G.
Chromosomes vary in length, but average about 100,000,000 base pairs in length (source). Each base pair is about 0.34 nanometers long, which means that the DNA in each cell, if fully unwound, would stretch almost 2 meters high.
Cracking the Code
In 1961, Francis Crick and Sydney Brenner demonstrated that these base pairs are arranged into groups of three, known as "codons", such as: TGG or CTA, each of which corresponds to a particular amino acid (image from NASA):
Actually working out which codon corresponded to which amino acid was done in a massive race by labs around the world, triggered by Crick and Brenner's announcement. Each lab synthesised a sequence of base pairs, such as "CCC-CCC-CCC-CCC" and then fed it into the right part of a cell, to see which amino acid then got produced.
Not all the codons correspond to an amino acid. Some combinations are interpreted as "START SEQUENCE" and "STOP SEQUENCE". These START and STOP signals are used to divide the chromosome into regions called "genes", each gene sequence corresponding to a particular sequence of amino acids that forms a specific protein catalyst.
This is a eukaryotic cell (image from gene therapy review):
The human body contains about 10,000,000,000,000 of them, each one is only 0.01 mm in length but it contains an immensely varied chemical soup. Everything the human body does is controlled by the way the cells move or the chemicals the cells release; and that's determined by which chemicals in the soup react with each other.
The cell controls which reactions happen in two ways. Firstly it uses membranes to divide the cell into different 'reaction chambers'. And secondly it uses proteins as catalysts. Each specific catalyst has a dented surface that exactly matches the particular chemicals in the soup that it wants to react. Without the catalyst the chemicals bump together at random, only reacting if they happen to hit each other facing in exactly the right direction. With the catalyst the correct orientation happens every time, and the speed of the reaction is increased by a factor of a million or even a billion.
But it wasn't until 1953 that we cracked the code of how the cell decides which protein catalysts to make, or where it stores the information.
Locating the Code
It was known that the nucleus of the cell contained structures called chromosomes (chromosome images from Wikipedia):
Humans have 23 pairs of them:
In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick discovered that our chromosomes are made up of DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (DNA), arranged in a double-helix structure (image from Wikipedia). Read more about Watson & Crick, the basics of DNA and how it "does it's thing" in these past journal posts.
And that genetic information is encoded in this twisted ladder using the sequence of 'base pairs' that make up the rungs of the ladder. There are 4 base pairs, which are known by their initial letters: T, C, A & G.
Chromosomes vary in length, but average about 100,000,000 base pairs in length (source). Each base pair is about 0.34 nanometers long, which means that the DNA in each cell, if fully unwound, would stretch almost 2 meters high.
Cracking the Code
In 1961, Francis Crick and Sydney Brenner demonstrated that these base pairs are arranged into groups of three, known as "codons", such as: TGG or CTA, each of which corresponds to a particular amino acid (image from NASA):
Actually working out which codon corresponded to which amino acid was done in a massive race by labs around the world, triggered by Crick and Brenner's announcement. Each lab synthesised a sequence of base pairs, such as "CCC-CCC-CCC-CCC" and then fed it into the right part of a cell, to see which amino acid then got produced.
Not all the codons correspond to an amino acid. Some combinations are interpreted as "START SEQUENCE" and "STOP SEQUENCE". These START and STOP signals are used to divide the chromosome into regions called "genes", each gene sequence corresponding to a particular sequence of amino acids that forms a specific protein catalyst.
Aletheia Athanatos
Member
How we use the Code of Life
To understand some of the similarities between the code of computer and the code of life, we're going to have to look at the actual machinery in the cell by which we start off with base pairs, and end up with proteins,
The process can be broken down into steps:
1. Transcribe the DNA into RNA
2. Modify the RNA
3. Translate the RNA into a chain of amino acids
4. Modify the chain of amino acids
(with a bit of transport happening between steps to take things to the right parts of the cell.)
Step 1 - Transcribe the DNA into RNA
This is the RNAP enzyme, which is responsible for hooking apart a small section of DNA in the cell's nucleus then coping the information from it onto a messanger strand of RNA which can be moved around the cell. The image is from Wikipedia.
Step 2 - Modify the RNA
This is the spliceosome (image from an Biologische Fakultat) which removes bits of the RNA and just throws them away. We call the bits it keeps "exons" and the bits it throws away "introns". The process is known as "splicing" (image from Wikipedia):
Step 3 - Translate the RNA into a chain of amino acids
This is the ribosome, and it translates the messanger RNA into a chain of amino acids known as a "peptide" (image from Wikipedia).
Step 4 - Modify the chain of amino acids
This is a chaperone enzyme, responsible for creating proteins from peptide chains by doing things like folding, making bridges, adding groups, cutting them in half, and so on. Think of it as a tailor doing a final fitting and accessorising. The image is from Wikipedia.
Similarities
If the sequence of base pairs between the START and the STOP signs are the equivalent of a single computer program, then the introns are the equivalents of comment lines.
A boss can tell a programmer "We no longer need to have your web browser be able to send email." and the programmer responds by commenting out the bits of code that allow email sending. In just the same way, if a fish starts adapting to living in deep caves with no light, the bit of genetic code that gives the fish eyes may get 'commented out' by a random mutation that turns the previously active code into an intron, giving you a blind fish that doesn't need to expend energy on growing an organ it no longer has a use for.
These 'non-coding' regions of DNA are also subject to bit rot in just the same way as computer programs are. A retrovirus is an RNA virus that is replicated in a host cell via the enzyme reverse transcriptase to produce DNA from its RNA genome. The DNA is then incorporated into the host's genome by an integrase enzyme. The virus thereafter replicates as part of the host cell's DNA. An endogenous retroviruses is one which affects the germline cells in the eggs or sperm, which mean the changes made in the hosts DNA are not restricted to a single cell, they are passed on to all the host's descendants.
These 'markers' are left in the DNA at a random but steady rate, and these remain untouched when the markers fall within the introns, slowly degrading the unused functionality in successive generations of the creature.
In just the same way that we can estimate how long ago a piece of computer code went inactive, by how many of the commented out lines have accumulated mistakes, we can estimate how long ago a feature in a creature became vestigial, by comparing the 'commented out' version of a gene with a clean working copy of the gene from a related species (such as a fish that remained on the surface and still uses eyes).
To understand some of the similarities between the code of computer and the code of life, we're going to have to look at the actual machinery in the cell by which we start off with base pairs, and end up with proteins,
The process can be broken down into steps:
1. Transcribe the DNA into RNA
2. Modify the RNA
3. Translate the RNA into a chain of amino acids
4. Modify the chain of amino acids
(with a bit of transport happening between steps to take things to the right parts of the cell.)
Step 1 - Transcribe the DNA into RNA
This is the RNAP enzyme, which is responsible for hooking apart a small section of DNA in the cell's nucleus then coping the information from it onto a messanger strand of RNA which can be moved around the cell. The image is from Wikipedia.
Step 2 - Modify the RNA
This is the spliceosome (image from an Biologische Fakultat) which removes bits of the RNA and just throws them away. We call the bits it keeps "exons" and the bits it throws away "introns". The process is known as "splicing" (image from Wikipedia):
Step 3 - Translate the RNA into a chain of amino acids
This is the ribosome, and it translates the messanger RNA into a chain of amino acids known as a "peptide" (image from Wikipedia).
Step 4 - Modify the chain of amino acids
This is a chaperone enzyme, responsible for creating proteins from peptide chains by doing things like folding, making bridges, adding groups, cutting them in half, and so on. Think of it as a tailor doing a final fitting and accessorising. The image is from Wikipedia.
Similarities
If the sequence of base pairs between the START and the STOP signs are the equivalent of a single computer program, then the introns are the equivalents of comment lines.
A boss can tell a programmer "We no longer need to have your web browser be able to send email." and the programmer responds by commenting out the bits of code that allow email sending. In just the same way, if a fish starts adapting to living in deep caves with no light, the bit of genetic code that gives the fish eyes may get 'commented out' by a random mutation that turns the previously active code into an intron, giving you a blind fish that doesn't need to expend energy on growing an organ it no longer has a use for.
These 'non-coding' regions of DNA are also subject to bit rot in just the same way as computer programs are. A retrovirus is an RNA virus that is replicated in a host cell via the enzyme reverse transcriptase to produce DNA from its RNA genome. The DNA is then incorporated into the host's genome by an integrase enzyme. The virus thereafter replicates as part of the host cell's DNA. An endogenous retroviruses is one which affects the germline cells in the eggs or sperm, which mean the changes made in the hosts DNA are not restricted to a single cell, they are passed on to all the host's descendants.
These 'markers' are left in the DNA at a random but steady rate, and these remain untouched when the markers fall within the introns, slowly degrading the unused functionality in successive generations of the creature.
In just the same way that we can estimate how long ago a piece of computer code went inactive, by how many of the commented out lines have accumulated mistakes, we can estimate how long ago a feature in a creature became vestigial, by comparing the 'commented out' version of a gene with a clean working copy of the gene from a related species (such as a fish that remained on the surface and still uses eyes).
Aletheia Athanatos
Member
When they're embryos, all bony fish, reptiles and birds have an attached yolk sac, to contain yolk for the young creature to live off once the egg has been laid and is no longer attached to or contained by the adult's body.
A similar structure is present in humans and other mammals but, although the embryo does make use of it as part of their developing circulatory system, the fluid filling it (called "vitelline") does not contain all the proteins present in yolk.
The Controversy
Creationists assert that this structure should be called the "umbilical vesicle", and that it has no relationship with the organ in reptiles.
Everybody else accepts that the structure is a vestigial yolk sac, the remains of a once fully functioning one used by ancestral species.
The Prediction
Modern scientists are lucky enough to be in the position of the judge in the story in part 1. They don't have to just go on functionality. They can peek at the source code. We can predict that, if the scientists are right about the structure being a vestigial yolk sac, we should find in our DNA the genes that would be required to make it a fully functional yolk sac, 'commented out' and degraded, but still there and recognisable with the right tools.
There are three genes used to make the proteins in yolk, all present and working in reptiles, named VIT1, VIT2 and VIT3. If the prediction is correct, one or more of these should be present but broken in the human genome.
The Discovery
And indeed, in 2008, that is precisely what three Swiss scientists discovered.
David Brawand, Walter Wahli & Henrik Kaessmann [2008] "Loss of Egg Yolk Genes in Mammals and the Origin of Lactation and Placentation" PLoS Biol 6(3): e63. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060063
They traced the presence of these genes through multiple species
And they confirmed the presence of the broken genes, hidden in the intron 'comments' of the human genome, locating the exact chromosome and position on that chromosome it was hiding on. (Which has now been independently verified.)
They were even able to use bit rot to provide a cross-check on exactly when each gene stopped being functional. Like the eyes of a blind cave fish, producing those yolk proteins was a waste of energy for a creature that didn't lay external eggs and so, once the gene got 'commented out' by random mutation, that had an evolutionary advantage and the change spread through the gene pool.
Conclusion
It is absolutely certain that the human species descended, via evolution, from a common ancestral species shared with modern birds and reptiles. There is no other explanation for the presence in our genome of broken copies of working genes. You can read much more about this story in an excellent article by P. Z. Myers in his blog: Pharyngula. But I want to finish by quoting his conclusion:
The story is all right there in your genes. You're walking around carrying the crumbling record of hundreds of millions of years of history - all we need is the tools to extract it and read it.
And we now have those tools.
A similar structure is present in humans and other mammals but, although the embryo does make use of it as part of their developing circulatory system, the fluid filling it (called "vitelline") does not contain all the proteins present in yolk.
The Controversy
Creationists assert that this structure should be called the "umbilical vesicle", and that it has no relationship with the organ in reptiles.
Everybody else accepts that the structure is a vestigial yolk sac, the remains of a once fully functioning one used by ancestral species.
The Prediction
Modern scientists are lucky enough to be in the position of the judge in the story in part 1. They don't have to just go on functionality. They can peek at the source code. We can predict that, if the scientists are right about the structure being a vestigial yolk sac, we should find in our DNA the genes that would be required to make it a fully functional yolk sac, 'commented out' and degraded, but still there and recognisable with the right tools.
There are three genes used to make the proteins in yolk, all present and working in reptiles, named VIT1, VIT2 and VIT3. If the prediction is correct, one or more of these should be present but broken in the human genome.
The Discovery
And indeed, in 2008, that is precisely what three Swiss scientists discovered.
David Brawand, Walter Wahli & Henrik Kaessmann [2008] "Loss of Egg Yolk Genes in Mammals and the Origin of Lactation and Placentation" PLoS Biol 6(3): e63. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060063
They traced the presence of these genes through multiple species
And they confirmed the presence of the broken genes, hidden in the intron 'comments' of the human genome, locating the exact chromosome and position on that chromosome it was hiding on. (Which has now been independently verified.)
They were even able to use bit rot to provide a cross-check on exactly when each gene stopped being functional. Like the eyes of a blind cave fish, producing those yolk proteins was a waste of energy for a creature that didn't lay external eggs and so, once the gene got 'commented out' by random mutation, that had an evolutionary advantage and the change spread through the gene pool.
Conclusion
It is absolutely certain that the human species descended, via evolution, from a common ancestral species shared with modern birds and reptiles. There is no other explanation for the presence in our genome of broken copies of working genes. You can read much more about this story in an excellent article by P. Z. Myers in his blog: Pharyngula. But I want to finish by quoting his conclusion:
The story is all right there in your genes. You're walking around carrying the crumbling record of hundreds of millions of years of history - all we need is the tools to extract it and read it.
And we now have those tools.
Interesting article on the discovery of the double helix.
Sexism in science: did Watson and Crick really steal Rosalind Franklin’s data?
Sexism in science: did Watson and Crick really steal Rosalind Franklin’s data?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
In your consciousness from two preceding human parents neither your human body. The baby adult human is creator by sexual procreation of the owned one species human by two humans.
Your consciousness being the topic destroyer by bible genesis exodus is all about the human group. Once named Satanists now scientists.
Who as conscious human adults owned consciousness says as the adult you are one of the creators of the human species. By human conscious only status.
Now that you have AI interfered with the human mind proven by science studies mind contact coercion and programmed. You've become so self possessed that you are now expressing some type of other creator motivation.... that created all life by your owned physical biological studies. Just humans.
Of anything you chose to study theory just as a human.
When a single human says to the group you are all just humans. Group bullying tactics as just humans have been used forever in human life to enforce the subjective..... just human beliefs. Is how you come about by science destroying all life on earth.
So said your human sacrificed brother forced to use a machine to speak on his behalf Stephen Hawking.
In life you see human bones misshapen formed and then don't question who caused it!
Sex brought the human life into being.
The atmosphere is a fixed ground state. Hence all humans should be perfect only.
The term perfect human also denotes an inequality in the statement. As if you lived perfect you would not own any reason to discuss its obvious non presence.
Your consciousness being the topic destroyer by bible genesis exodus is all about the human group. Once named Satanists now scientists.
Who as conscious human adults owned consciousness says as the adult you are one of the creators of the human species. By human conscious only status.
Now that you have AI interfered with the human mind proven by science studies mind contact coercion and programmed. You've become so self possessed that you are now expressing some type of other creator motivation.... that created all life by your owned physical biological studies. Just humans.
Of anything you chose to study theory just as a human.
When a single human says to the group you are all just humans. Group bullying tactics as just humans have been used forever in human life to enforce the subjective..... just human beliefs. Is how you come about by science destroying all life on earth.
So said your human sacrificed brother forced to use a machine to speak on his behalf Stephen Hawking.
In life you see human bones misshapen formed and then don't question who caused it!
Sex brought the human life into being.
The atmosphere is a fixed ground state. Hence all humans should be perfect only.
The term perfect human also denotes an inequality in the statement. As if you lived perfect you would not own any reason to discuss its obvious non presence.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
As a human and healer my human whole one bodied life allowed me to realise how one human owned awareness of the other one human.
By meditation study and no questions asked. A psychic body scan involved instead. Advised of medical condition plus emotional history.
It allowed me the human realisation that I did not originally need to work on dead bodies of humans to learn science. How to only assist life's health.
My natural consciousness already identified to its best ability sickness in family and what type of nature bodies were needed as medical treatment.
My natural life seeing looking directly at one hundred percent the only correct advice is why I argue against science. Natural whole complete bodies.
As you don't thesis our whole one natural living bodies. No human life no human DNA either.
Most of your thesis came from the studies of dead things.
You apply all the body comparisons as a human talking about what type of bodies we aren't. The advice owned by the chosen body you study gives you the advice. It isn't from somewhere else.
Now that medical science advanced....other science branches now use human healths medical advice against us.
Is the reality what do you science self really know if no other body existed present naturally with you?
As you apply all the comparisons you are the only human doing it. Yet consciousness infers I am two types of human in one life. A natural human and a human applying thinking status.
Then express your thinking status by behaviour as superior human intelligence.
By meditation study and no questions asked. A psychic body scan involved instead. Advised of medical condition plus emotional history.
It allowed me the human realisation that I did not originally need to work on dead bodies of humans to learn science. How to only assist life's health.
My natural consciousness already identified to its best ability sickness in family and what type of nature bodies were needed as medical treatment.
My natural life seeing looking directly at one hundred percent the only correct advice is why I argue against science. Natural whole complete bodies.
As you don't thesis our whole one natural living bodies. No human life no human DNA either.
Most of your thesis came from the studies of dead things.
You apply all the body comparisons as a human talking about what type of bodies we aren't. The advice owned by the chosen body you study gives you the advice. It isn't from somewhere else.
Now that medical science advanced....other science branches now use human healths medical advice against us.
Is the reality what do you science self really know if no other body existed present naturally with you?
As you apply all the comparisons you are the only human doing it. Yet consciousness infers I am two types of human in one life. A natural human and a human applying thinking status.
Then express your thinking status by behaviour as superior human intelligence.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
A bird is just a bird.
A human has never been a bird.
A dinosaur was living exactly as the dinosaur. No human is a dinosaur.
If I wanted to prove that biology expresses owns similar substances as life as a life. Then human applied chosen studies has.
Yet you are just a human using a topic science who chose to apply a humans reasoning.