The post of Colin Hercus interests me greatly, and I am greatful that he took the time to explain how things work for a bioinformatician.
When a library of DNA fragments are finally complied across all known species, and object oriented life builder can be authored as a software process to select desirable traits with robust error correction mechanisms to form new life forms. With the environment of a target planet as a adaptive template, an organism(s) can be fabricated through a compilation linking these desirable traits against those required to thrive in that alien environment. IMHO, Genetics is just a sub-field of chemistry and therefore a proper subject for vortex. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ** > Interesting facts but I fail to see how it would help bolster your > argument. Saying that this model fits random mutation better is useless > because you are simply expressing an opinion. You mention a lot of facts > but have not tied it into your argument. How do these facts you enumerated > support your contention? > > You say that the difference between a chimp and human is only 1%. Are you > also going to say that this 1% difference is only on the parts of the DNA > that encode into genes, (ie. the coding part of the DNA), or are you going > to hide this fact also? That in fact, if you take the entirely of the > Chimp DNA and compare it with Human DNA, the difference is a far cry from > 1%. It is this level of disception that is prevalent in your > "darwinian-dogma" world that serves to foist this big lie on the > uninitiated. Before you ask me to take my blinders off, come clean and > stop confusing people with "facts" only to hide your deception. > > Jojo > > PS. Absolutely, this is off-topic, but this is part of a bet. I am > betting that a person who expresses a belief different from Darwinian dogma > will be treated differently. I am not doing anything more than what Jed is > doing is his amount of off-topic posts, but I will be treated differently > and is now hanging on the verge of being banned. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Colin Hercus <colinher...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 9:01 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution > vs. Macroevolution > > Hi Jojo, > > I work as a bioinformatician and study DNA and mutations in DNA every day. > I develop software for this that is used in 100's of Universities and we > have over 200 citations on Google scholar. > > Darwin had a view of evolution that we now know was rather simple. > A few things about DNA that I think are of interest: > 1. We have about 3billion nucleotides in our DNA > 2. Typically from one human to next there are about 1 million differences, > most are small single nucleotide difference but there are also large > differences where there will be bits missing (1000 nucleotides or so in one > person relative to the other, around 600 occurrences) > 3. Overall documented differences in DNA at single base level are about 3 > million nucleotides though this keeps going up as we sequence more genomes > 4. Each person born will have about 35 new single base changes (i.e. a > very few but definitely some) > 5. Some mutations result in eggs that fail to grow, some in miscarriages, > some in early death, some have minimal or no effect. > 6. The difference in DNA between a chimp and a human is about 1% or 30M > nucleotides, only about 10 times what exists between all humans. > 7. Sometimes there are large DNA changes, Viruses insert there DNA into > ours, bits going missing during cell division, or bits get duplicated. Once > a gene is duplicated one copy may evolve to take up a different function > These changes can all be tracked between species and over time by studying > the differences in DNA between different species. > They sequenced DNA of Neanderthals (from fossils, DNA left in teeth and > Bones.) Interestingly about 5% of DNA in Europeans is from Neanderthals > rather than early descendant from Africa. > National Geographic studied the Y chromosome from humans all around the > world and has built extensive maps of migration from this by tracking > changes. Interesting that the DNA changes of a few bp per generation fit > the fossil maps and time frame of migration archaeologists have constructed. > I could goon for hours. > > The science behind this is very sound, the evidence is there. I know DNA > is incredibly complex, we are amazing chemical factories, but we are also > full of mistakes and errors that limit our life, that lead to cancer, heart > attacks and various inherited diseases, not counting our disposition to > greed, selfishness, hate & murder. This to me fits the model of random > mutations with survival of the fittest much better than an intelligent > design. > > I think before you take this subject very far you really should do a bit > of study into genetics. Oh and take the blinkers off first. > > Colin > PS I think this is totally off topic for Vortex > > > > On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> ** >> Hello gang, >> >> In this post I will define the difference between Microevolution vs. >> Macroevolution. Yes, I believe evolution happens, I believe Microevolution >> happens, not Macroevolution. >> >> First, micro vs macro has nothing to do with the amount or number of >> changes. That is, numerous micro evolutions does not equate to a macro >> evolution. The main difference is the source of the changes. >> >> Microevolution or Adaptation is a process whereby an individual expresses >> certain traits that enable it to adapt more successfully to its new >> environment. The source of the changes is the information already encoded >> in its DNA. Upon the appearance of an environmental stress, certain genes >> could express itself resulting in a new macro trait that would enable it to >> adapt to its new environment. The information needed to create a new trait >> is already fully encoded in its DNA. Only the activation is done. This >> form of evolution is called Microevolution. The species evolve within its >> own DNA boundaries and changes occur within the species itself. Since >> microevolution is simply an activation of a dormat trait, the new trait >> created is not permanent. It is possible for the new trait to dissappear >> and lay dormant again once the stress is removed. And since changes are >> encoded in the DNA, microevolutionary changes are not additive. That is it >> does not persist within a species with new additions to it. It is all just >> an expression of what that species is inherently capable of based on the >> makeup of its DNA genes. >> >> Macroevolution or Darwinian Evolution on the other hand, is this idea >> that changes are the result of random mutation on one's DNA. Dormant >> traits are not expressed, rather new genes randomly come into being to >> create a new trait. And because huge changes to DNA are fatal, >> macroevolutionary change has to occur in small minute and small incremental >> changes occuring over generations. Otherwise, a major retructuring on >> one's DNA would cause massive genetic deformations causing less ability to >> compete and survive. Macroevolution is this idea that changes have to be >> mutated into place and that numerous successive changes would result in the >> creation of a new species. This is in essence what Darwinian Evolution >> postulates. >> >> To illustrate, there was a study a few decades back wherein >> microbiologists subjected E. coli to streptomycin antibiotics. As >> expected, the some E. Coli survived streptomycin, and reproduced and >> eventually became streptomycin resistant. Hurray, positive proof that >> Darwinian Evolution occurs!!!, right? >> >> Hold on a second. This is NOT proof of Darwinian Evolution but rather >> this is proof of microevolution is action. Upon closer examination of the >> resistant E.Coli colonies, they found out the streptomycin resistance was >> conferred by a single protein on the cell wall. The new protein prevented >> streptomycin from latching onto the cell wall thus preventing it from >> denaturing the cell wall and breaking it open. And upon even closer >> examination, they found out the this new protein was a result of an >> expression of a single gene that normally lay dormant in the E.Coli. Hence, >> it became clear the the ability of E. Coli to develop streptomycin >> resistance was conferred by "genetic coding" already existing within its >> DNA. All that was required was for that gene to be expressed. No random >> mutation of DNA occured. No natural selection, just an expression of what >> God already gave it. >> >> Furthermore, E.Coli did not eventually evolve into a different species. >> It is still E.Coli after the equivalent of Billions of years of evolution. >> >> Furthermore, the streptomycin resistance dissappeared from the general >> population after streptomycin was removed for a couple of generations. The >> genes once again laid dormant and the general population was once again >> susceptible to streptomycin. >> >> >> >> This my friends is why there is so much confusion in the debate, because >> these scientists are so dishonest, so blinded by religious adherence to >> Darwinian Dogma that they deliberately lie about these things. I bet none >> of you in this forum heard about this. All you heard was that the bacteria >> developed streptomycin resistance providing irrefutable proof of Darwinian >> Evolution, right? None of you heard the other details that would question >> Darwinian Dogma, right? >> >> >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> > >
