The Kinks in Evolution Options

[*Steven*]

Sergeant Pepper's lonely hearts club band!

[brooklyneast05]

"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.

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

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?

i don't think u're saying animals can be immortal, i'm thinking u're saying that they should be.

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.

perhaps if i had an education at a private international high school, it would all be clear to me

[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.

[sheridan_whitesi...]

First off, you're not rocking my world with how smart you are. I'm not going to sleep on it, I'm not impressed by Mom and Dad's money, and reading how you've misinterpreted a biology class designed around a standardized test isn't making me rethink my understanding of science. And no, I'm not going to PM you so you can enlighten me about the functions of p53, how it repairs DNA or induces apoptosis.

Ok, now for setting you straight. Evolution isn't about "striving for survival," at least not for survival's sake. It's only about staying alive enough for reproduction. Ok, we realize you know about how mutations in proto-oncogenes cause cancer, and how most of the human genome doesn't code for proteins. Transposable DNA elements and those billions of non-coding base pairs actually absorb mutations from the environment. If a T turns to a C in a huge intron, it's not going to matter. Transposons help evolution because they can deliver a whole gene family to a different region of DNA. Let's say theoretically that muscle cells operated strictly out of involuntary reflex to immediate stimuli. There is no connection to the nervous system. However, one day a transposable element which contained some genes coding for central nervous reporting were inserted near the Myo D gene, a muscle-specific bHLH transcription factor. [look at how smart that sounds! I got a bj just typing it!] If this mutation occurred in the germ-line, the progeny would switch on central nervous control genes with the muscle-specific Myo D gene and the muscles would now contain precursors for more nerve development. That is an oversimplification, but it shows how a gene family could theoretically transpose itself into a new useful function, instead of waiting for enough single-base changes to make opposable thumbs.
Sure, a transposable event could move a bit of chromosome 20 on chromosome 8 and give you leukemia. We still have them because most transposon events aren't in the germline and therefore not heritable. If my uncle Pete gets cancer because of a transposition, it's not going to matter to my cousin Doug. Pete's already reproduced and served his evolutionary purpose. Our wonderful defenses against cancer, proofreading enzymes, p53 and other tumor-supressor genes are there because they helped us fend off cancer until we made some babies.

I could seriously write a 10 page [wow how long!] paper about this stuff but I'll spare you about how awesome I am for now.

[Call911Quick]

Right, all the replies I'm typing are coming off the top of my head. I really don't have a website/book/wikipedia open in front of me. I don't know the chromosomes responsible for each genetic disease by heart.

However, think about it this way. A theoretical way to cure cancer is to manipulate siRNA (short interference RNA) in order to stop the uncontrolled cell division. The thing is that we don't understand how the restriction points in the cell cycle work.

@Ersatz, people are boy or girl due to whether they have XX or XY chromosomes. In a girl, one X is turned off and becomes a barr body. Nothing is turned off in a boy. Your gender isn't determined by genes being controlled...

And you may have the same education as NoSex, but you sure don't talk like it.

Right, I'm grateful for my parents that they can give me an education. And seeing as how I've studied evolution for a grand total of 4 weeks, 10 pages IS impressive. I don't research evolution or anything, everything I've said is based off of what I've learned. Right, and I'm 16, how old are you? Unless the things I've been taught are false and thus invalid, my questions really have no answer.

Back to the original questions:

WHY do we have genes that code for receptors on our cells that stop metabolism?

WHY do we have SO MUCH unused DNA? Perhaps a segment of transposable DNA can be inserted into our gene to give us mind-reading abilities (exaggeration, don't take me seriously), but 98.5%? That's too outlandish of a number.

Again, I'm simplifying so that we don't have to read gigantic essays.

[Comptine]

Right, all the replies I'm typing are coming off the top of my head. I really don't have a website/book/wikipedia open in front of me. I don't know the chromosomes responsible for each genetic disease by heart.

However, think about it this way. A theoretical way to cure cancer is to manipulate siRNA (short interference RNA) in order to stop the uncontrolled cell division. The thing is that we don't understand how the restriction points in the cell cycle work.

@Ersatz, people are boy or girl due to whether they have XX or XY chromosomes. In a girl, one X is turned off and becomes a barr body. Nothing is turned off in a boy. Your gender isn't determined by genes being controlled...

And you may have the same education as NoSex, but you sure don't talk like it.

Right, I'm grateful for my parents that they can give me an education. And seeing as how I've studied evolution for a grand total of 4 weeks, 10 pages IS impressive. I don't research evolution or anything, everything I've said is based off of what I've learned. Right, and I'm 16, how old are you? Unless the things I've been taught are false and thus invalid, my questions really have no answer.

Back to the original questions:

WHY do we have genes that code for receptors on our cells that stop metabolism?

WHY do we have SO MUCH unused DNA? Perhaps a segment of transposable DNA can be inserted into our gene to give us mind-reading abilities (exaggeration, don't take me seriously), but 98.5%? That's too outlandish of a number.

Again, I'm simplifying so that we don't have to read gigantic essays.

[font=2]
I'm actually studying for college Intro Bio right now (not very well).

First of all, I'm in a rush, so I'll put in my two cents to your latest post and some stuff I picked up on. I'll come back to reply to other stuff.

1) Mutations are primarily bad. But by pure chance, every once in awhile, a mutation actually leads to something good. DNA duplicates and sometimes that leads to mutations like losing a function, or a gaining a new function.

2) Selection just happens. Species A had the better genes to survive than Species B. Species B cannot compete well for resources -> cannot find food for offspring -> die off. Simple as that. It just happens. It took millions of years to make a human. It's not an active process. It's completely passive and it's about who was born with the better traits to develop and REPRODUCE to pass the traits onto offspring.

3) We have a lot of junk DNA and a lot of it scientists have no idea what they do. Slowly, science is revealing more and more about DNA. Recently, it was theorized that junk DNA is actually rich in regulatory RNA sequences. They can regulate different things in the genome, like silencing a gene.

4) 97% of our genes are identical to a chimp. Such a large percent because humans and chimps diverged recently. Fruit flys and humans diverged an even longer time ago. So the DNA commonalities will be smaller. Please check your statistics.

5) The female scientist you mentioned in your first post, though I'm not sure because many experiments like this were conducted, was able to prolong the life because she extended the life of the tails on chromosomes. At the very end of a chromosome, there is a protective cap/layer (telomerase). Each time the chromosome duplicates, the protective layer deteriorates. This deterioration is the main cause for aging. It slows everything from metabolism to pigmentation down.

6) If someone somehow gives birth to a baby where the genes have mutated that don't slow down metabolism, then good for him. but right now, humans just didn't get the luck to have genes that don't stop metabolism. Just because it's a good thing doesn't mean we HAVE to have developed it.

[/size]

[Call911Quick]

THANK you. I wanted this to be a discussion about my questions on evolution (as stated in my previous post) rather than a discussion about my education.

I'm not trying to disprove evolution either, I'm just showing the inconsistencies. It seems everyone here is aggressively attacking every slip-up I make in my OP. Let me remind you that everything is off the top of my head?

And people say Christians aren't open minded. I might as well be talking to a bunch of televangelists.

[Kontroll]

Did you even attend a high school biology course?
Did you take more than five minutes to read the responses in this thread?
Are you a moron?

Yeah, man. I did, and I failed, because biology produces little c**ts like you. You f**king nigger.

[NoSex]

Yeah, man. I did, and I failed, because biology produces little c**ts like you. You f**king nigger.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

[brooklyneast05]

Let me remind you that everything is off the top of my head?

whoa, really?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111

[Call911Quick]

I like how you only respond to the most trivial and unimportant part of my posts.

[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.

[Kontroll]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

Yeah, no problem. Oh, and why don't you stop being such a little faggot. Do us all a favor. Thanks. Merry Christmas douche bag.

[sheridan_whitesi...]

Top of your head? I'm pretty sure you're getting this stuff from elsewhere in your anatomy.

However, think about it this way. A theoretical way to cure cancer is to manipulate siRNA (short interference RNA) in order to stop the uncontrolled cell division. The thing is that we don't understand how the restriction points in the cell cycle work.

Could you be a bit more clear? What are you getting at? What is this "manipulation" we could do to a piece of 25bp RNA to make cancer a thing of the past? Are you saying that we could introduce siRNAs that will hybridize with oncogenic mRNA, shutting down its translation via the Dicer RNAi pathway? The reason this isn't happening now isn't because we "don't understand the restriction points in the cell cycle." Our cell cycle checkpoints are actually pretty well elucidated. The problem lies in RNAi itself; it works well in nematodes and yeast, but not so much in mammals. It wouldn't form a good cancer treatment right now the way we have it working; it deactivates non-target sequences too much for any practial anti-cancer application.

WHY do we have genes that code for receptors on our cells that stop metabolism?

Weren't you just on about how much you knew about apoptosis? Stopping metabolism can have useful applications, like killing off cancer cells or cells which have degraded past the point of usefulness. If you want me to double your life like whats-her-face did with C. Elegans by making your telomeres infinite, we can do that. Gee, why would we ever want to stop cells from dividing indefinitely?

WHY do we have SO MUCH unused DNA? Perhaps a segment of transposable DNA can be inserted into our gene to give us mind-reading abilities (exaggeration, don't take me seriously), but 98.5%? That's too outlandish of a number.

Your 98.5% figure is based off of the fact that 1.5% of our genome is exons, sequences that code for proteins. There is a considerable amount of promoters and other regulatory regions, regions that code for useful RNAs, like ribozymes or ribosomes. These guys account for another 1.5%. Other than that, there are introns which, while not directly translated, are often regulatory motifs, i.e. there's an exon, 10kb of intron, and another exon, and if it's 9 or 11kb, the exons won't work. Introns make up a considerable portion of the genome, about 23%. These figures are not static. The human genome isn't "all figured out" yet. Every year Craig Venter and company put out a new version of the genome, each successive version has had more genes than the last, from a strictly quantitative view, i.e. kb of DNA. Qualitatively, the definition of gene has shifted and the number is more volatile. So this leaves us with the nongenic, nonregulatory DNA that still makes up over 75% of the genome. Why is it there? Again, it absorbs mutations, and the energy spent replicating it is infinitesimal enough that it doesn't pose an evolutionary disadvantage. It makes sense that we have this much non-coding DNA. The genes that code for vestigial functions, biochemical pathways, and limbs posed no evolutionary disadvantage when mutations sprung up all over them so they just drifted out of our genome and into nongenic DNA. This has happened since life on earth evolved from prokaryotes, so we've got a considerable backlog of old genes that now bear no resemblance to anything useful.

@Ersatz, people are boy or girl due to whether they have XX or XY chromosomes. In a girl, one X is turned off and becomes a barr body. Nothing is turned off in a boy. Your gender isn't determined by genes being controlled...

You are wrong. We will default to female unless the gene products from the Y chromosome, SRY in particular, go to work at regulating genes to make us male. SRY protein is a TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR. It's job is CONTROLLING GENES. If somehow I got a Y chromosome with a bad SRY gene, I'd be a girl, because there would be no SRY protein to shut off girly hormone production and girly organ development. Or maybe the SRY bit of the Y chromosome translocated into my father's X, and I got two X chromosomes, one with a functional SRY gene, I'd still be a boy, albeit one with no reproductive future. With manipulation of the SRY gene, it can be a mixed-up, muddled-up shook-up world, girls will be boys and boys will be girls.

[sheridan_whitesi...]

Sergeant Pepper's lonely hearts club band!

That's by The Beatles, not The Kinks you fool! Stay on topic.
The Village Green Preservation Society!