The "missing link" is probably no longer missing...

[Diamond Rose]

Scientific scepticism?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ida-real-story

[marki]

Originally Posted by Enchilada

Faith, right or wrong, for some, says otherwise.
Knowing does not equate to knowledge,
nor does science relate to belief.

What about the RNA - the real / true key to the evolutionary process?

Just trying to keep it simple. Ribonucleic acid is mainly used to carry the code from the DNA to ribosomes during transcrition/translation (mRNA and tRNA) and uracil replaces the thymine in the chain. These form a triplet code which can then be read off to produce protien chains. Only certain viral particals use RNA as their code carrier (HIV being one of them). Are you suggesting evolution is mainly driven by mutation caused by viral infection?

As for the religion Vs science argument well that is a complete waste of time. One deals in absolutes and truths and the other does not (apparently ). Science cannot disprove the existence of god nor can the religious prove the existence of god so what is there to argue about? Unfortunately science is often used to bolster belief systems and this is never a good thing. Bottom line is many of our grand parents and great grand parents fought and died in wars so that we could live in a country which allowed us to believe what we want to and for that I am very greatful. If you believe in god, thats cool if you don't thats cool as well.

Mark

[marki]

Originally Posted by cruiser

Latest update:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/...0521-bh81.html

At least some scientists are asking questions too.

I would agree with that. You only have to observe the antics of some of the larger biotechnology companies to realise that science is very self serving for some. In the light of day what have they found? A little dinosour with an opposable thumb. Exciting find yes but hardly conclusive in the history of humankind. As I said in my first post bacteria grouped by visual observation and deemed to be related on physical simularities has proven to be false in a number of cases. It was only after the DNA of these organisms was sequenced that the mistakes were found. Could it be the same for this little creature . I imagine they would be hard pressed to find any usable DNA after 47 million years so we will probably never know. Bet it's gonna start some heated arguments though.

Mark

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by marki

Brian, creationism or any other mystic system of belief does not belong in a science classroom as there is nothing remotely scientific about it nor could it be unified with scientific theories. It belongs in religious education classes being taught by those who are versed in the subject. If it were to be introduced into the science classroom it would be ridiculed and certainly never taken as a serious explaination. In fact it would have the exact opposite effect that christian and other believers would hope for. I have never understood why people would want it be part of any science curricula. I doubt it would make it any more valid. I think Rob nailed it. You either believe or you don't, thats your right.

Mark

+1. Science class teaches science. Creationist evolution is religious propaganda, nothing more and nothing less and will never belong in a Science class. Period.

I find it a bit rich for some to say it's up to the individual to choose to 'believe', since the Christian beliefs (i.e Church) have been proven to slaughter anyone else who didn't see things their way (Crusades, persecution and murder of at least Six million "witches", forced adapation of the Christian belief - the Irish are a perfect example here). You can deny what I've said, you can censor it, but it *doesn't* change the truth. No other religion has been so forceful onto others in terms of 'convert to our religion or die'. For that matter, the Roman Catholic church has had more paedophiles in its ranks than probably exist outside of the church, and worse still, the Vatican chose to ignore it and cover it up, as far back as the 60s. Disgraceful.

Dave

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

I know my name is Brian, and that I'm not the messiah, and that I'm probably just a very naughty boy, but I am beginning to object to having my name linked inextricably with beliefs which I categorically DO NOT hold.

Just for the record, I do not believe that religious beliefs have any place in a science class. You may or may not believe in the scientific method, systematic doubt, falsifiable hypotheses, deductive reasoning that follows observation (and not religious beliefs that guide it), and you may even believe that all this constitutes some religious conviction all on its own. Nonetheless, it is the only belief system that belongs in a science class room, and it is the only belief system that has measurable benefits for mankind.

Nya nya na nya nya...

[leinad (Dan)]

How about the missing link to LB1 ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0120144508.htm

[marki]

Whether it be big or small, that looks very much like a homo sapien skull to me.

Mark

[Enchilada]

Originally Posted by marki

Are you suggesting evolution is mainly driven by mutation caused by viral infection?

Basically, knowledge in more recent years, says it is a real possibility. The true "acceleration of evolution" is not known, as is the true origin of RNA. Protein manufacture is the key with immunity to resist germs, as with the article that appeared in Science Daily "
"Evolution Is Driven By Gene Regulation", "Dead Gene Comes Back To Life In Humans" and "New Mode Of Gene Regulation Discovered In Mammals" (It seems "hammerhead ribozyme" is more critical than once thought.)

Weaknesses in species could not only be natural selection or environment; but viral infections causing biological catastrophe - followed by rapid periods of evolution. (far too detailed here to discuss I think!)

Originally Posted by marki

If you believe in god, thats cool if you don't thats cool as well.

Exactly my point. Science and faith have no actually equivalence. This is why debates like these cannot be investigated by avenues like faith.

[marki]

Some good articles there. The only problem I have is that virus particles are very destructive to the host cell and the organism they invade. Only a retro virus will incorparate itself into the DNA of an organism and would have to disrupt an active coding region ( insert between start - stop sequences) to alter gene regulation and expression. My real question would be "could the organism survive such a change for long enough to pass on its altered DNA . I guess that depends on where the viral DNA ends up. It would then have to be incorperated into the gamets of a sexually reproducing organism to be passed on. Very interesting all the same, so many questions, so much to learn .

Mark

[Enchilada]

Originally Posted by marki

My real question would be "could the organism survive such a change for long enough to pass on its altered DNA "

Yes, I think. Almost certainly. It would only take one or several organisms to survive to pass on the "defect", while the vast genome population is summarily sacrificed. This leaves a niche for evolution or some other species to fill in the gap from the opportunity of the other species' widespread demise - either replacing it altogether or co-existing. Based then on natural selection or environment, one newly and significantly or slightly evolved species prevails.

More interesting is RNA / DNA can even 'evolve' during the organism's lifetime, and could be passed on to the next generation.

Very profound, methinks!

Note: Intelligent design has no answer to this. The process has been generally documented and observed, while it is rarely discussed because of its profound implications. Why people ever want to believe it is beyond me, when the biological processes are so outstandingly beautiful and complex - and logical. Thinking about it, the doubt reminds me of the meta-philosophy of the Björk song "Human Behaviour";

"If you ever get close to a human
And human behaviour
Be ready, be ready to get confused
There's definitely, definitely, definitely no logic
To human behaviour
But yet so, yet so irresistible
And there's no map
and a compass
wouldn't help at all
They're terribly moody
And human behaviour
Then all of a sudden turn happy
But, oh, to get involved in the exchange
Of human emotions
Is ever so, ever so satisfying
Oh oh, and there's no map
Human behaviour, human
Human, human behaviour, human
Human, human behaviour, human
Human behaviour, human."

[marki]

Originally Posted by Enchilada

More interesting is RNA / DNA can even 'evolve' during the organism's lifetime, and could be passed on to the next generation.

If my distant memories of my molecular biology and gentics lectures serves me (it was a very long time ago ) you can expect numerous mutations to occur in a very short period of time but these are mostly reversed by the SOS mechanism in cells. Remember much of the genetic material is non coding so it would have to occur in an active region which is why the idea of interupting gene expression/regulation is very interesting. I think the main effect of mutated RNA would simply mean defective construction of protien chains which would be recognised as rubbish and be promptly broken down. At worst it would mean an inability to perform some function, at best the ability to perform a new fuction depending on the nature of the resulting protien chain. If the mutation of DNA was isolated to a few cells then it would have little effect excepting cancer or HIV etc. Outside of this I do not think mutation would be a major factor of evolution in an organisms life time as many cells would need to be affected by change (hmmmm strains of Dr jeckyl and Mr hyde or the hulk ). What really counts is when the altered DNA is past onto the next generation (remember that in sexually reproducing organisms there is a process of mixing genes at the time the gamets are formed) where the mutation is evident in all cells thus the trait is inherited by the offspring. Hmm I think I will have to dig out the old text books and files again, its been far to long but I do love this stuff.

Mark

[Enchilada]

Originally Posted by marki

If my distant memories of my molecular biology and gentics lectures serves me (it was a very long time ago ) you can expect numerous mutations to occur in a very short period of time but these are mostly reversed by the SOS mechanism in cells. Remember much of the genetic material is non coding so it would have to occur in an active region which is why the idea of interupting gene expression/regulation is very interesting. I think the main effect of mutated RNA would simply mean defective construction of protein chains which would be recognised as rubbish and be promptly broken down. At worst it would mean an inability to perform some function, at best the ability to perform a new fuction depending on the nature of the resulting protien chain. If the mutation of DNA was isolated to a few cells then it would have little effect excepting cancer or HIV etc.

I think the point you say here is absolutely true - but it is not zero probability. If 99.9999% is killed - 0.0001% is all that is needed to change it.

Proteins variations are also interesting. I.e. Muscle proteins, for example, can be grossly different from one species to another. If I can recalled, cell sheath proteins is monkeys are different than humans. This accounts for their overall strength of monkeys per unit muscle than us humans.

[marki]

Originally Posted by Enchilada

I think the point you say here is absolutely true - but it is not zero probability. If 99.9999% is killed - 0.0001% is all that is needed to change it.

Proteins variations are also interesting. I.e. Muscle proteins, for example, can be grossly different from one species to another. If I can recalled, cell sheath proteins is monkeys are different than humans. This accounts for their overall strength of monkeys per unit muscle than us humans.

Absolutely, there is always a chance for sure. Perhaps I can de-evolve so I can have a bit of that monkey strength, it sure would be helpful in getting my LX200 on that bloody wedge . What do they say 2 or 3x stronger than a human? Sure could do with the longer arms too as it would help with collimation. Hmmm I wonder have we really become more advanced?

Mark

[Enchilada]

Originally Posted by marki

Perhaps I can de-evolve so I can have a bit of that monkey strength, it sure would be helpful in getting my LX200 on that bloody wedge .

[Enchilada]

Is there any 'evidence' for evolution in The Bible?
Also is there any 'evidence' of human differences in the biological or genetic level?

(The latter I know of is the ages of people in Genesis being able to live for +800 years or more. I forgotten the reason why humans these days don't live as long, but it was something God did for the wickedness of those before Noah and the Great Flood?)

(Answers here no debate please, as it if forbidden I think in the rules TOS!!)

[CoombellKid]

Originally Posted by marki

As for the religion Vs science argument well that is a complete waste of time. One deals in absolutes and truths and the other does not (apparently ). Science cannot disprove the existence of god nor can the religious prove the existence of god so what is there to argue about?
Mark

Ummmm.... I dont think that is totally true. In the 150 years (give or
take) since Darwin wrote his book. It's held up to science pretty well.
In fact I dont know of any science yet that has disproved any of his
theory. But in the last 150 years what have we learned. The earth
wasn't made/hand crafted/whatever in 7 days 12,000 years ago. I
think all the proof of that is pretty consistant with science. And the
evolutionary step of sand to man and rib to woman is just a tad
stretched. these are just a couple... I'm sure there are many more.

Oh yeah! the land isn't flat, we orbit the sun. It was religion that
proposed this thoeries and Science that put everyone right.

regards,CS

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

+1 CoombellKid.

Hell, even scientists were imprisioned by the Church for falseties (Gallileo anyone?). The church ruled with an iron fist, anyone who didn't agree was tortured and usually killed. It's like the Borg in Star Trek - lower your shields and prepare to be assimilated.

I look at some of the religious propaganda (because that's all it really is) and laugh. According to the Vatican, if you don't worship their God, and you don't repent, you go to hell. Since the bible says that worshipping another God(s) other than God is a sin, then 80% of the world's population is going to Hell. What a lovely forgiving God, and what a lovely forgiving religion (please note the sarcasm in my text).

Thankfully I'm a rather easy fellow to please - I'm a chaos anarchist druidic pagan. I worship mother nature. Man can keep arguing with her all he likes, and she'll keep kicking our you know whats. Time and time again. The whole idea of science is to constructively prove, with evidence, a belief. Science doesn't rely on false beliefs, social or peer pressure, etc. It's generally quite accurate without the need to resort to religious mumbo jumbo.

And, I firmly believe that religion has no place in a public school, as an alternative to scientific theories. To do so is anachronistic. One thing I've learnt about religion is that it's all about *control and power*. Nothing more.

I'd like to thank the mods for allowing this thread to have a relevant modicum of common sense in the discussions, and some area to grow in terms of how to approach the debate.

Dave

[theodog (Jeff)]

All this talk of schools and religion got me thinking (and I work in the school industry).
My evidence: Teenagers.
Even parents disclaim responsibility for them sometimes.
I think it would be a good move for the creationists to, at least, allow teenagers evolution from Ida. At least this would give their gods some peace from arkward questions from all the parents and teachers.

I look at the news, and around society, and sometimes wonder if Ida is ahead or behind us on the evolutionary path?
Are neanderthals really extinct?
Is it so many generations ago since H. erectus walked the earth?

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

+1 CoombellKid.

I'd like to thank the mods for allowing this thread to have a relevant modicum of common sense in the discussions, and some area to grow in terms of how to approach the debate.

Dave

Hi,

I'd like to second that. I did fear one or two posts here seemed to be getting quite heated earlier but our mods chose forbearance.

It must be very hard to pick where the dividing line is, similar to being a touch judge.

Then again they have the third umpire and the video replay.

Cheers

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by theodog

Are neanderthals really extinct?

Sadly, yes. Homo neanderthalis was a separate (but related) species to mankind. DNA is different between them and Homo sapiens. It also appears that Homo sapiens hunted and ate their competitors, i.e. cannibalism.

Dave