The Kinks in Evolution Options

[Call911Quick]

I've been studying AP bio at a private international high school. We've learned a little bit about evolution, and after learning about it, I realize that there are problems with the theory. Here I will show you why Evolution is credible, and why it is also not "proven fact".

***If you are already fairly familiar in detail with the theory of Evolution, skip down to my series of dotted lines.***

First of all, let me inform you about DNA. 1.5% of your DNA are genes. Genes are what code for proteins and RNA molecules (enzymes). These are the mini machines in your body that regulate everything from the distance between your eyes to the length of your toes. There are around 30,000 genes in a human cell, give or take.

So, what is the other 98.5% of your DNA? It is actually composed of many different things. Random segments of non-coding DNA, transposons, satellite DNA, etc. At any rate, all you need to know is that the rest of your DNA does absolutely NOTHING good for you.

Now, I may be exaggerating, but 99% (or somewhere around that number) of our genes are identical to a fruit fly's genes. This is one of the bases for the theory of evolution; we are so similar to primates, flies, and even sea cucumbers. We must have a common ancestor.

The theory of evolution states that over the course of 1.5 billion years (That's a REALLY LONG TIME!), single cell procaryotes eventually evolved into simple multicellular organisms composed of specialized eucaryotic cells. The first animal: sponges.

From sponges, it went to worms. Worms were the first animals to have a central nervous system, radial symmetry, and most importantly, a head. From there it's a really long story but basically we evolved over the course of 1.5 billion years. This is actually quite probable; lots can happen in such a long time.

This is my mini introduction to the theory of evolution, just to clarify some things. It may be 1% of what is actually known, because I could write a 10-page essay on this thing.

----------------------------------------------

The problem with evolution likes in your DNA.

As you all know, genetic mutations cause diseases. Genetic mutations can occur in many different ways. The most common causes are mutagens, such as x-rays, car exhaust, etc. They're chemicals that cause genetic mutation.

Another way is from viruses. AS you know, viruses insert a segment of double-stranded DNA into your cell, which integrates itself with that particular cell's DNA. This causes the cell to produce more viruses, etc.

The step in which the virus' DNA integrates itself with your human DNA is where mutations can occur. Your cell doesn't produce viruses, but maybe it grows uncontrollably and eventually develops into a malignant tumor. Viruses are a leading cause for cancer.

Secondly, and more curiously, is your own DNA is capable of mutating itself. I mentioned earlier that a part of your DNA is transposons. Approximately 15%. If you have knowledge in Latin roots, you can figure out that transposons are segments of DNA that can be cut out and re-inserted by the enzyme transposase. This has no known positive benefit, and is just a formula for genetic mutations. Another cause for cancer.

If evolution were true, why did we develop this kind of DNA? The only reason why we don't have cancer is because a cell firstly needs 13-17 mutations in order to become cancerous, and the probability of transposons affecting a gene is low, because your cell's growth cycle has two restriction points, and if something is wrong, the it will commit suicide. Your mutated cell kills itself, unless the... well, if you want to know about cancer, PM me.

-------------------------------------------------

Are you curious why human cells stop metabolism? Why do we age? Why do we die? Well, part of the cause is once again, ourselves. Our cells have receptors for hormones with, basically, tell the cell to stop metabolizing. A scientist (forget her name, she's a genius tho) experimented with roundworms. She ended up being able to DOUBLE the life of a roundworm (from two weeks to four weeks) by mutating the gene that codes for said receptors on the cell. The cells are incapable of receiving the hormones, and thus don't die THAT way.

There are other ways our cells die. Our sex cells, or gametes, also have a way of causing our body to stop metabolism. I wasn't paying much attention during this part of the lecture, so I can't go into detail.

Anyway, why does this happen? If evolution were true, we'd have never developed this aging process. We strive for survival. The animals that mutated and began aging should have died, while the animals that didn't would live much longer. According to Darwin, that is.

Think on it. Sleep on it. Take some aspirin.

[ersatz]

Everyone has to have an education by law, at least in the U.S., which is where most of us are...so "at least I have an eduation" doesn't work, because it's not a very good one anyway.

It's not like the animals with "better genes" live forever. Everyone dies. Living forever is bad, as said earlier. Obviously evolution would require that some animals were weaker. It's natural selection. Those that are weaker would act as nourishment for the stronger animals. Kind of like how so many animals eat grass -- grass has no natural defenses. It's pretty much the weakest plant out there. But it has the genes to be able to spread and multiply quickly. You don't see as many trees as you do blades of grass for a reason -- trees don't need to multiply that quickly. They have the defense of being really tall. It IS an animal's instinct to survive, but that has nothing to do with the fact that animals die. The animals didn't consciously evolve, it just happened. Through their instinct, the stronger animals prey on the weak. Duh.

In layman's terms, I guess, since you don't seem to get it...

[Call911Quick]

Everyone has to have an education by law, at least in the U.S., which is where most of us are...so "at least I have an eduation" doesn't work, because it's not a very good one anyway.

It's not like the animals with "better genes" live forever. Everyone dies. Living forever is bad, as said earlier. Obviously evolution would require that some animals were weaker. It's natural selection. Those that are weaker would act as nourishment for the stronger animals. Kind of like how so many animals eat grass -- grass has no natural defenses. It's pretty much the weakest plant out there. But it has the genes to be able to spread and multiply quickly. You don't see as many trees as you do blades of grass for a reason -- trees don't need to multiply that quickly. They have the defense of being really tall. It IS an animal's instinct to survive, but that has nothing to do with the fact that animals die. The animals didn't consciously evolve, it just happened. Through their instinct, the stronger animals prey on the weak. Duh.

In layman's terms, I guess, since you don't seem to get it...

Uhh, no, you're the one who doesn't seem to get it. Dr. Kenyon (ty NoSex) doubled the life span of worms, she didn't make them live forever. I never said "live forever". "Live longer" might be the correct interpretation of whatever I said.

Secondly, evolution doesn't require any animal to be weaker. Don't personify evolution, evolution is merely a sequence of cause and effect events with a lot of chance thrown in.

"I don't seem to get it?" Perhaps you'd like to read my previous posts? I'm discussing evolution at a molecular level. You're the one that doesn't get it.

"It IS an animal's instinct to survive, but that has nothing to do with the fact that animals die." Read that to yourself a couple times. That's what you just said, word for word. That's like saying "It IS a fact that I wear shoes, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I walk around."

"The animals didn't consciously evolve, it just happened." That's what I've been TRYING to say all this time. In evolution, everything happens for a reason. Weaker animals are extinct for a reason: they were weak, duh! Thus, if "it just happened", why did the animals with weaker genes (lived half as long) survive to pass their genes down? Because we are obviously capable of living until we're 150 years old, according to Dr. Kenyon's work.

Perhaps I shouldn't have implied you don't have an education. I meant that what you say gives off the impression that you haven't had an education, or haven't learned anything in biology class. Quit trying to insult my knowledge when you clearly don't have any of your own. NoSex is the only one supplying a tangible and strong argument. And he still hasn't addressed the existence of excess DNA, which consists of 98.5% of a human's DNA.

Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that I said animals can be immortal.

[ersatz]

Uhh, no, you're the one who doesn't seem to get it. Dr. Kenyon (ty NoSex) doubled the life span of worms, she didn't make them live forever. I never said "live forever". "Live longer" might be the correct interpretation of whatever I said.

Secondly, evolution doesn't require any animal to be weaker. Don't personify evolution, evolution is merely a sequence of cause and effect events with a lot of chance thrown in.

"I don't seem to get it?" Perhaps you'd like to read my previous posts? I'm discussing evolution at a molecular level. You're the one that doesn't get it.

"It IS an animal's instinct to survive, but that has nothing to do with the fact that animals die." Read that to yourself a couple times. That's what you just said, word for word. That's like saying "It IS a fact that I wear shoes, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I walk around."

"The animals didn't consciously evolve, it just happened." That's what I've been TRYING to say all this time. In evolution, everything happens for a reason. Weaker animals are extinct for a reason: they were weak, duh! Thus, if "it just happened", why did the animals with weaker genes (lived half as long) survive to pass their genes down? Because we are obviously capable of living until we're 150 years old, according to Dr. Kenyon's work.

Perhaps I shouldn't have implied you don't have an education. I meant that what you say gives off the impression that you haven't had an education, or haven't learned anything in biology class. Quit trying to insult my knowledge when you clearly don't have any of your own. NoSex is the only one supplying a tangible and strong argument. And he still hasn't addressed the existence of excess DNA, which consists of 98.5% of a human's DNA.

Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that I said animals can be immortal.

NoSex and I have the same education, asshole.

What I meant was that they have the instinct to try to keep living and to not die for as long as possible. Obviously they are going to die, but they don't want to die right now, so they're going to try to keep themselves alive. Animals die no matter how hard they try to stay alive. Thus, their instinct to survive has nothing to do with the fact that they die -- animals would die whether they had the instinct or not.

Evolution does require that there are weaker things. If there was nothing considered weak or strong, then there would be no adaptations made to be stronger, thus there would be no evolution because everything would remain the same. Humans evolved into humans in order to be stronger than other primates by having two legs to walk on. Primates evolved from earlier beings to be stronger by having opposable thumbs and fur. So on and so forth...as time goes on, environment changes, and animals adapt to that environment in order to keep the species alive. Those that do not adapt die out, or at least, they don't grow higher on the species chain.

When I said it just happened, I didn't mean there wasn't a reason, I meant that the animals themselves didn't plan it out or wake up one day and say, "I think I'm going to make some thumbs today." They had to adapt to the new environment. Adaptations are made in order to ward off predators and become stronger. If snakes didn't get rid of the legs they once had, they would not be able to move as quickly in sand and dirt and would also not be able to go under the sand and dirt as easily. That was their environment: sand and dirt. They adapted to it. That's the reason.

Weaker animals keep on surviving because they don't just die as they come out of the womb. They keep on living until something kills them. Antelope are obviously weaker than lions, but that doesn't mean the antelope just die out. There are more antelope than every lion can eat; obviously some of them will keep living for a while. Like J.C. said, as long as they live long enough to reproduce (which can be a very short time for some animals, probably the weaker ones, because their species made that adaptation in order to survive, dum dee dum...), then their species will go on. Once they have so few of them that their predators can finish most, if not all, of them off before they have the chance to reproduce, then they will die out. That is how animals become extinct.

The excess DNA is there for the things that our species had before we evolved. All of the things we don't use are there still, just not turned on. Genes are turned on -- that's also how you become a boy or a girl. When you evolve, you don't just get rid of a gene right away. It's still there, just not as visible over time, or not turned on. Many animals have very similar DNA, but they look extremely different and have extremely different parts and defenses because not all of their genes are activated.