Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[d_brennen]

So your religion is better than all those which preceded it, and all those that came after? The catholic church run away from the literal interpretation of the bible many decades ago, since that only ends up in one place: fundamentalism.

I got many fiction books in my library, am I to believe what each one of them says?

"Times to come?" Really?

As I said, I do respect you believing in god, but not on random rules like:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." (Exodus 21:7-8)

"Do not withhold discipline from a child. If you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod, you will save his life from Sheol." (Proverbs 23:13-14)


.... etc

So we want to go back to literal interpretation of the "holy" books .... really? I think you lot should move to Afganistan and enjoy! I rather live on a world dominated by a bit more of logic, humanism and science.

Exactly. Oh, wait... let's just pick and choose the bits we like

 

[ringo747]

It's a chemistry - that is, you have local units obeying local rules, information with the DNA is transcribed and things like liver cells are built, but a liver cell is only interested in it's own tiny piece of the puzzle - it has no knowledge of what's going on around it, or what pancreas cells are doing or what skin cells are doing - chemical processes limit the liver cells so they build a liver.

A liver is going to be much more complicated that a liver cell. Can mutations in DNA alone provide all the required information to construct such an organ? Does DNA encode everything that is required to go from cells > tissue > organ?

This means that if you change a 'bit' of the DNA whilst you alter it in it's entirety, only the bit that's been altered will be expressed if transcribed, if it is transcribed - the mutation might be detrimental (cancer) or it might be positive - say for increased metabolic function, or if it's a lung cell - increased lung capacity etc.

If this process goes on, in all DNA over a long time (tens of thousands of years) then evolution predicts that the life form in question can change dramatically depending on it's environment.

This is really getting into what I don't understand so bear with me! Would the construction of this organ arise due to the need for some regulatory function to ensure survival? Which occurs first, the need for regulatory control, or the organ itself?

Unrelated, but all this presupposes that there was a detailed information set to begin with at the very start of the process. Can matter and energy alone explain information injection?

ringo747, You have 3 main types of mutation, addition, deletion and substitution. Deletion and addition result in a base shift of all the amino acids, which could benefit or not, the organism. It doesn't result in the whole genome changing or whatever.

Substitution swaps one base for another, so this can result in a change of one amino acid, or not, which can produce a change to the good or bad, or non at all.

So with these 3 types, only pure addition generates new information. Substitution and deletion both have a change on the original. Correct?

Which of the 3 types are more common?

 

[ringo747]

But that's exactly it. It may start as a simple duplication, that duplication may copied incorrectly, that may be duplicated, that may mutate. The changes are tiny over time. Some may do nothing, other might influence, height, colour, hair, resistance to infection.

This sounds like substitution though. I see that duplication is classed as adding but it doesn't seem to infer adding 'new' information. If a mutation happens on the copy, then it is still acting on existing information.

You seem to infer that when and if this extra information is added it has to be useful and do something instantly. It doesn't it's simple a change. It could be a blemish like a birthmark or a hole in the heart, or tiny change in a cell. It's random it doesn't have a design or know where it's going, it's a process. Simply The changes that get through and give an advantage get repeated via offspring. The ones that are disadvantaged don't prosper.

No, I'm aware that information doesn't have to be useful. That's why I'm interested in the probability that mutations are useful v not.

I get what you are saying but simply copying existing information is different from adding new genetic information that is useful for building new functionality. Mutations making changes to existing functionality I understand, mutations resulting in complex information to build totally new functionality that never before existed in a species I'm afraid I don't understand.

 

[d_brennen]

No, I'm aware that information doesn't have to be useful. That's why I'm interested in the probability that mutations are useful v not.

I get what you are saying but simply copying existing information is different from adding new genetic information that is useful for building new functionality. Mutations making changes to existing functionality I understand, mutations resulting in complex information to build totally new functionality that never before existed in a species I'm afraid I don't understand.

The last sentence, define what you mean by new functionality please. It sounds suspiciously like a Creationist's crocoduck thought process. Nothing is going to sprout a new head or wings from one generation to the next

 

[V-Spec]

A liver is going to be much more complicated that a liver cell. Can mutations in DNA alone provide all the required information to construct such an organ?

The liver came about through evolution and as such is the culmination of lots and lots of successful mutations, piled upon previous mutations - selected by nature because it works well.

So to answer your question - yes, because the whole thing is the result of a billion years of simple underlying natural laws affecting it.

Does DNA encode everything that is required to go from cells > tissue > organ?

Yes.

But this sort of thing is insanely complicated, the chemical relationships between DNA, Cells and how organisms are constructed are mind boggling, as a layman who reads books - I'm certainly not qualified or knowledgeable enough to explain this, if you want a full answer - seek it out by reading biology.

This is really getting into what I don't understand so bear with me! Would the construction of this organ arise due to the need for some regulatory function to ensure survival? Which occurs first, the need for regulatory control, or the organ itself?

Exactly.

The liver is an interesting example, because just about all complex organisms, (mammals, fish, insects) have livers.

The liver would have come about as something barely noticeable or recognisable as a liver - perhaps a sack of weird cells somewhere which 'just happened' through mutation, to aid in metabolization, as time progresses - an organism with this ability might fair better than those without, over time it becomes more complex until you end up with a big organ with all the connectivity and functions (some still unknown) that it does today.

Unrelated, but all this presupposes that there was a detailed information set to begin with at the very start of the process. Can matter and energy alone explain information injection?

It's not 'information injection' - 'information' supposes that there's some sort of intelligence to what's held inside DNA, there isn't - it's just a long string of ATGC, it's chemistry.

Matter and the physical laws that affect it are quite capable of creating complex things without any 'information' look at a ********* through an electron microscope;

It looks like you'd need information to build it, to know how to arrange the different bits to make the structure - but it's the same common physical laws that just produce it, but there's no information, just matter energy and the atomic relationships between molecules.

Now i'm not suggesting that a ********* is anything lifelike, or a ********* evolves or has genes, merely that the progressive 'hammering' of physical laws, can create complex things without any information, or any 'guidance'

I admit, I find this utterly incredible but a bit unsettling, however it's the truth as far as anyone can tell.

 

[d_brennen]

snip

As an aside, and not evolution related specifically, there's a brilliant book called Why Do Buses Come in Threes? by Rob Eastway. Fascinating read about the relationship between numbers, everyday life and everything in the Universe. Cracking read

 

[V-Spec]

As an aside, and not evolution related specifically, there's a brilliant book called Why Do Buses Come in Threes? by Rob Eastway. Fascinating read about the relationship between numbers, everyday life and everything in the Universe. Cracking read

Looks good, I'll have to check it out.

I've just finished reading 8 books by R.P Feynman, an absolute genius if ever there was one, he writes about a lot of similar things and explains the simple fundamental rules that underpin everyday 'stuff' in the most fun ways.

 

[DampDog]

I get what you are saying but simply copying existing information is different from adding new genetic information that is useful for building new functionality. Mutations making changes to existing functionality I understand, mutations resulting in complex information to build totally new functionality that never before existed in a species I'm afraid I don't understand.

But that's it, if you like the duplicate is a blank canvas to be written. In the begining it may well be a simple copy. Overtime it may be written and re-written a million times. It will contain it's own information, mutations and copies. I can't understand why you are hung up on "New" information. Once the original infromation is changed in any way it's "New" I can't remember what the game is called that I played as a kid. You start with a word, then change one letter each go until it becomes a new word meaning something completely different, in essence that's how it works.

GRACE-TRACE-TRACK-CRACK... ....EVOLUTION... ...BEYOND... The changes are small, but each word has a totally different meaning, so the information it imparts is new and different.

 

[ringo747]

The last sentence, define what you mean by new functionality please. It sounds suspiciously like a Creationist's crocoduck thought process. Nothing is going to sprout a new head or wings from one generation to the next

A liver.

The liver came about through evolution and as such is the culmination of lots and lots of successful mutations, piled upon previous mutations - selected by nature because it works well.

So to answer your question - yes, because the whole thing is the result of a billion years of simple underlying natural laws affecting it.

Which would you expect to come first, the need for the organ in question, or the organ itself?

Yes.

But this sort of thing is insanely complicated, the chemical relationships between DNA, Cells and how organisms are constructed are mind boggling, as a layman who reads books - I'm certainly not qualified or knowledgeable enough to explain this, if you want a full answer - seek it out by reading biology.

That sounds like a no actually. If chemical relationships are important too then that would suggest that DNA-only doesn't work. It certainly is an interesting topic!

Exactly.

The liver is an interesting example, because just about all complex organisms, (mammals, fish, insects) have livers.

The liver would have come about as something barely noticeable or recognisable as a liver - perhaps a sack of weird cells somewhere which 'just happened' through mutation, to aid in metabolization, as time progresses - an organism with this ability might fair better than those without, over time it becomes more complex until you end up with a big organ with all the connectivity and functions (some still unknown) that it does today.

In this development of the liver, were all the mutations the correct ones each time? Considering some mutations are useless it is amazing that something as complex as a liver formed.

Again, I'm curious as to when the need for the liver arose. Bearing in mind that harmful mutations do occur would it not be like messing about with chemicals in a science lab hoping you don't blow the place up. If the function of the liver is regulatory control then the success rate of mutation must be been nearly perfect, otherwise it could have been disastrous.

It's not 'information injection' - 'information' supposes that there's some sort of intelligence to what's held inside DNA, there isn't - it's just a long string of ATGC, it's chemistry.

Matter and the physical laws that affect it are quite capable of creating complex things without any 'information' look at a ********* through an electron microscope;

It looks like you'd need information to build it, to know how to arrange the different bits to make the structure - but it's the same common physical laws that just produce it, but there's no information, just matter energy and the atomic relationships between molecules.

Now i'm not suggesting that a ********* is anything lifelike, or a ********* evolves or has genes, merely that the progressive 'hammering' of physical laws, can create complex things without any information, or any 'guidance'

I admit, I find this utterly incredible but a bit unsettling, however it's the truth as far as anyone can tell.

Yes as you say a ********* maybe isn't the best example but it certainly is an amazing construct nonetheless.

It seems that information is absolutely necessary when dealing with living organisms.

 

[ringo747]

But that's it, if you like the duplicate is a blank canvas to be written. In the begining it may well be a simple copy. Overtime it may be written and re-written a million times. It will contain it's own information, mutations and copies. I can't understand why you are hung up on "New" information.

To construct complex new organs like the liver we have been discussing would require information to control the construction process. If you copy "abcdefgh" 100 times it is still the same information no matter how many times you copy it. At best you simply mutate the copy, but this isn't creating new information, this is tweaking existing information.

Once the original infromation is changed in any way it's "New" I can't remember what the game is called that I played as a kid. You start with a word, then change one letter each go until it becomes a new word meaning something completely different, in essence that's how it works.

It seems just so improbable that I struggle to get my head around it.

 

[King4aDay]

Ringo, I really, really recommend you having a read of one of Dawkin's books (The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable or The Selfish Gene). As you seem genuinely interested in trying to understand the theory (ouch, bad choice of word in this thread!) behind evolution.

I'm not an out-and-out Dawkins fan, but he is very good at explaining evolutionary concepts in layman's terms. It'll be much easier than trying to piece it all together from random posts on a computer forum

 

[jmc007]

So your religion is better than all those which preceded it, and all those that came after? The catholic church run away from the literal interpretation of the bible many decades ago, since that only ends up in one place: fundamentalism.

I got many fiction books in my library, am I to believe what each one of them says?

"Times to come?" Really?

As I said, I do respect you believing in god, but not on random rules like:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." (Exodus 21:7-8)

"Do not withhold discipline from a child. If you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod, you will save his life from Sheol." (Proverbs 23:13-14)


.... etc

So we want to go back to literal interpretation of the "holy" books .... really? I think you lot should move to Afganistan and enjoy! I rather live on a world dominated by a bit more of logic, humanism and science.

Who did Jesus seem to be set against during his time here? The established religeons, as they were obviously not doing things right, even though they thought they were holier than thou.
Infact God came to dethrone the power of religeons, not a lot of people know this though a few supernatural things happened when Jesus died as well as the day turning to night, the veil infront of the arc of the covenant was torn. Symblosing that there was now no barrier between us and God as Jesus had bridged that gap.

I personally take all those quoted scripture as fair dincom, I will ask you one thing, do you know what a witch is?

 

[V-Spec]

Which would you expect to come first, the need for the organ in question, or the organ itself?

The environmental conditions.

That sounds like a no actually. If chemical relationships are important too then that would suggest that DNA-only doesn't work. It certainly is an interesting topic!

The question - does DNA contain the information to build a complete life-form, is absolutely yes, no exceptions, this is mainstream knowledge.

DNA by itself obviously does not work - that is, if you put DNA out for culture it won't do anything, it'll just sit there, but DNA inside cells in a functioning body does a lot.

In this development of the liver, were all the mutations the correct ones each time? Considering some mutations are useless it is amazing that something as complex as a liver formed.

This has been answered a billion times, i'll answer it one last time.

Some mutations are beneficial and are selected because they work - they offer an advantage for the 'machine' in which they reside, that allows the 'machine' to continue.

Many mutations are not beneficial - cancer, colour blindness, cardio defects, these put the machine at a disadvantage which makes it less likely those mutations will be passed on (because said machine will die before it can procreate)

Again, I'm curious as to when the need for the liver arose. Bearing in mind that harmful mutations do occur would it not be like messing about with chemicals in a science lab hoping you don't blow the place up.

Which is exactly what happens, and is exactly why we have things like cancer, terrible genetically inherited birth defects - like grotesque harlequin syndrome (google it - it looks exactly like an explosion in a science lab, and it's entirely genetic)

If the function of the liver is regulatory control then the success rate of mutation must be been nearly perfect, otherwise it could have been disastrous.

The function of the liver is not 'regulatory control' it does a massive heap of functions, many of which we can't reproduce - unlike kidneys where you can survive on kidney dialysis, you cannot survive on liver dialysis - no machine can do it.

The liver's main responsibility is metabolism, which toxic substances, fat and other stuff are broken down and moved into waste.

The because all animals are putting things inside their mouths from the environment, food - the chemicals in the food, water and the chemicals inside that, we need an organ to deal with all of these - the evolution of the liver would be driven by what these animals are eating/drinking/being exposed to.

During this time, there would be a progressive 'battle' between good mutations and successful reproduction, which would caress the liver to being more and more suited to it's environment, change the environment - the things you eat/drink or are exposed too - and the liver changes with it over time.

These sorts of things have been documented and observed in animals, perhaps not with livers, but definitely with digestive systems and other organs.

Yes as you say a ********* maybe isn't the best example but it certainly is an amazing construct nonetheless.

It seems that information is absolutely necessary when dealing with living organisms.

Well, information is obviously necessary, but it's unintelligent - it doesn't need any intelligence to work.

For me to build something that looks like a ********* out of bits of wood, i'd need intelligence, i'd need to design then i'd need to actually consciously build it and check it to make sure it's right.

Nature doesn't design the *********, it's simply the final phenomena that comes as the result of many natural laws, the exact same natural laws that make things like DNA, the atomic structures between molecules - everything is related in this way.

 

[aardvark]

Ringo, I really, really recommend you having a read of one of Dawkin's books (The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable or The Selfish Gene). As you seem genuinely interested in trying to understand the theory (ouch, bad choice of word in this thread!) behind evolution.

I'm not an out-and-out Dawkins fan, but he is very good at explaining evolutionary concepts in layman's terms. It'll be much easier than trying to piece it all together from random posts on a computer forum

i was about to suggest that. ringo, you are never going to 'get it' by reading a few posts or articles on the internet. Read some simple books as above or go to university and do a degree - the details are too complicated to fully explain here and are a results of thousands of researchers work over the last 100 years or more.

 

[hola_adios]

Who did Jesus seem to be set against during his time here? The established religeons, as they were obviously not doing things right, even though they thought they were holier than thou.
Infact God came to dethrone the power of religeons, not a lot of people know this though a few supernatural things happened when Jesus died as well as the day turning to night, the veil infront of the arc of the covenant was torn. Symblosing that there was now no barrier between us and God as Jesus had bridged that gap.

I personally take all those quoted scripture as fair dincom, I will ask you one thing, do you know what a witch is?

All what we know from Jesus comes from second hand and most of it recycled by Paul, first of all, second, Jesus did not come to "set things right" and do anything against the current, at the time, religions. Following your logic, those religions that followed Jesus are all right, or we should be expecting another coming in which we will be shown how the 1.1 billion muslims in the planet have also got it wrong?

I know what a witch is: anyone who doesn't believe in the writen word, or who is smarter than the village priest, or who dares to say that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, or that decides to think that god doesn't exist, or a girl who wants to study in university and dares to be smarter than the man next to her ... still don't see the problem?

 

[DampDog]

To construct complex new organs like the liver we have been discussing would require information to control the construction process. If you copy "abcdefgh" 100 times it is still the same information no matter how many times you copy it. At best you simply mutate the copy, but this isn't creating new information, this is tweaking existing information.

Yes but remember it's happened over millions and millions and millions of times. But just look at the obvious one "dog vs god" same letters different order totally different meaning and that just 3 letters. (the same as DNA) Now imagine millions on millions of letters and if only 2-3 change the outcome is significant, what might thousands of changes do? Also remember when the liver started out it was very simple and it didn't know it was a liver! it would have been something much simpler. As the body it was in became more complex so it adapted to the changes.

It seems just so improbable that I struggle to get my head around it.

But its not improbable, it's a simple process that just happens so many times, it's difficult to get you head round. But it's doesn't have to be that slow, people have been breeding, racehorses, dogs, pigeon, budgies, etc for years. They just observe the traits they like and breed from the animals that show it. (if you like they are mutation spotting) It might be speed, colour, size, temperament. Even oddities like Labradoddles.. It all happens on it's own in nature it's just takes more patience to see it.

But I don't subscribe to bashing people of faith either. I do find it odd when some take the Bible literally without question, I think it was intended as a source of information, not a tome to brow beat and frighten people with.

 

[jmc007]

All what we know from Jesus comes from second hand and most of it recycled by Paul, first of all, second, Jesus did not come to "set things right" and do anything against the current, at the time, religions. Following your logic, those religions that followed Jesus are all right, or we should be expecting another coming in which we will be shown how the 1.1 billion muslims in the planet have also got it wrong?

I know what a witch is: anyone who doesn't believe in the writen word, or who is smarter than the village priest, or who dares to say that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, or that decides to think that god doesn't exist, or a girl who wants to study in university and dares to be smarter than the man next to her ... still don't see the problem?

The Messiah did not come to put things right, lol. Everything he said and did virtually got their goat up.
I don't know what else to say about the rest of your post, I will go back to where you mocked when I said the Bible speaks of times to come. Damascus being lain to ruins has not happened in history, yet it is prophecied to happen near the end.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

Ringo, I really, really recommend you having a read of one of Dawkin's books (The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable or The Selfish Gene). As you seem genuinely interested in trying to understand the theory (ouch, bad choice of word in this thread!) behind evolution.

I'm not an out-and-out Dawkins fan, but he is very good at explaining evolutionary concepts in layman's terms. It'll be much easier than trying to piece it all together from random posts on a computer forum

+1. His books are brilliant. Not a fan of his atheist crusade, though.

 

[hola_adios]

The Messiah did not come to put things right, lol. Everything he said and did virtually got their goat up.
I don't know what else to say about the rest of your post, I will go back to where you mocked when I said the Bible speaks of times to come. Damascus being lain to ruins has not happened in history, yet it is prophecied to happen near the end.

Damascus has been laid to ruins at least twice on the 20th century, plus this the one happening right now.

I am not mocking you, I am trying to show you that with generic statements everything fits ... e.g. the seas will turn red ... of course sooner or later there will be a natural phenomenon which will fit. Have a read to Nostradamus, the human brain is hardwired to find patterns. If I were to leave something for posterity, surely I would be more precise, more detailed, offer equations or explanations of these ...

 

[Urgannagru]

Sorry to go back to some old posts but a few interesting points I'd like to go back to:

To construct complex new organs like the liver we have been discussing would require information to control the construction process. If you copy "abcdefgh" 100 times it is still the same information no matter how many times you copy it. At best you simply mutate the copy, but this isn't creating new information, this is tweaking existing information.

It seems just so improbable that I struggle to get my head around it.

Re-read that bit, you seem to of explained it yourself. By duplicating a gene and mutating the copy you have the original plus a new different gene. Theres your new information for you

A liver is going to be much more complicated that a liver cell. Can mutations in DNA alone provide all the required information to construct such an organ? Does DNA encode everything that is required to go from cells > tissue > organ?.

Yes and I can give some pretty damn good evidence for this.
We grow from a single cell (zygote) from this cell all other cells are produced so the DNA must include all the information required for the contruction of all tissues and organs in the body.
Now a counter argument to this (I'm not saying this is yours, I just want to reinforce my argument ) could be that God personally contructs each creature in the womb. However using genetic engineering people have been able to alter DNA in a cell, allow it to mature and then that organism show characteristics different to the original creature, from this we can infer that the DNA must be what controls how a creature is formed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish

Who did Jesus seem to be set against during his time here? The established religeons, as they were obviously not doing things right, even though they thought they were holier than thou.
Infact God came to dethrone the power of religeons, not a lot of people know this though a few supernatural things happened when Jesus died as well as the day turning to night, the veil infront of the arc of the covenant was torn. Symblosing that there was now no barrier between us and God as Jesus had bridged that gap.

JMC007, so using the same argument it could be said that Islam is the correct religion, as Muhamed came after Jesus with a message from god to correct our ways to Christianity must not of been quite right yet.
Also I'd be interested why up until around 500 years ago in America and 1300 years ago in China god appears to of abandonned his people in both these countries send no prophets to either of them until long after the middle east. Surely he would have wanted to correct the heathen ways so that they could be saved?