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.

[brooklyneast05]

i've responded to ur posts. i previously asked if u had looked into the multiple theories that have been suggested to explain these things u are asking about, such as the mutation accumulation theory i just recently read about. if u haven't, then i'm not quite sure why u are presenting these as major problems without even researching if they have possible answers and what those are. i also asked what a stronger gene in a specific area matters if it isn't doing anything relevant for u. when it comes to reproduction and passing on genes, i don't think living a long time after that is relevant.

i must be missing it as well, because i don't see how living half as long matters as long as they live long enough to reproduce. if both animals live long enough to pass on their genes, and the one dies and one lives another 30 years, what has changed? they've both still passed on their genes, which is what the goal was in the first place. the extra thirty years is irrelevant since they aren't going to be reproducing when they're old, not to mention animals in the wild rarely die of old age in the first place. so i'm not seeing how living 30 years more is making them "stronger". what does a stronger gene in a specific area matter if it's not doing anything relevant for u?
my main problem with this is that u are taking an extremely complex issue, and trying to make it a simple one. there's a lot of theories on this, have u read any? u should look into the mutation accumulation theory since u think natural selection doesn't work with aging, while this theory argues that aging is a byproduct of natural selection.