The Relevancy of Mechanisms of Natural Selection

[NewGuy]

Can anyone provide a PROOF of the concept of genetic changes in a species over successive generations over time by the forces and mechanisms of natural selection and how it relates to human evolution?

If you cannot, please do not be the first to post in this thread.

If you can, please be sure that the sum total of your first post in this thread is that very PROOF, supported by factual evidence, and nothing else.

Thank you.

 

[DKSuddeth]

humans are way too unpredictable a species to gauge natural selection by mechanisms

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
humans are way too unpredictable a species to gauge natural selection by mechanisms

Tell that to Zhukov. He swears by it. I am making the obvious attempt for anyone to prove his point since he can't hear an opposing one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Tell that to Zhukov. He swears by it. I am making the obvious attempt for anyone to prove his point since he can't hear an opposing one.

dude go read the reams and reams of research on genes. Then go away.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
dude go read the reams and reams of research on genes. Then go away.

The spotlight's on you now jester, prove the point or prove yourself ignorant.

The topic is proving the relevancy of mechanisms of natural selection in regard to human evolution.

If you can't, my point is proven again.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy

The topic is proving the relevancy of mechanisms of natural selection in regard to human evolution.

Easy.

evolution n: 3. Biology. a.) Change in the genetic composition of a populatioon during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.


There's your relevancy. It's in the definition of the word. Now would you like to try my thread?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Easy.

evolution n: 3. Biology. a.) Change in the genetic composition of a populatioon during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.


There's your relevancy. It's in the definition of the word. Now would you like to try my thread?

ghost ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gst)
n.
The spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats.

Now the issue here is that just as ghosts cannot be proven to haunt people or things, a definition saying it does doesn't make it fact.

By the same token, your point is totally invalid.

Again, prove it.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
ghost ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gst)
n.
The spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats.

Did you or did you not ask for the relevancy of natural selection to evolution? I'm sorry if you don't like that relevancy, but there it is.

If someone asked you the relevance of dead people to ghosts wouldn't your definition provide that answer? I think it would.

For the proof that the mechanisms of natural selection are indeed at work, I will get more in depth later, but there is cancer.

Cancer is the outcome of a transcription error in the copying of the DNA strand within a cell that results in the faulty translation of proteins within that cell. Transcription errors are proven. They happen about 10,000 times every time any one of your individual cells divide.

Any sort of transcription error that is not corrected by redundant transcription polymerase enzymes is called a mutation. If this mutation does not prevent an organism from reproducing itself, that mutation will be passed to its descendants. In those descendants other mutations will occur, which likewise if succesfull will be passed along.

The proof this happens? The fact that every year billions of people get a cold. When you get a cold your body develops an immunity. As your body is destroying the bacteria inside your body they continue to reproduce. At some point a bacterium will emerge that is sufficiently different from its ancestors that is has, through sheer chance and the mechanisms of natural selection, developed a new antigen-presenting agent on its surface. Therefore every year we have a new cold bacteria that sweeps around the world. The bacteria evolved.

The mechanisms of natural selection are the transcription errors in DNA replication. Over successive generations the result is a new species, one that is sufficiently genetically different, that possesses different properties.

That's natural selection. That's what Darwin observed. That's what led to his suppositions on the origin of humanity.


I can get more technical later if you like, but I'll need to get my textbooks so I can give you the exact numbers and chemical names.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Did you or did you not ask for the relevancy of natural selection to evolution? I'm sorry if you don't like that relevancy, but there it is.

If someone asked you the relevance of dead people to ghosts wouldn't your definition provide that answer? I think it would.

For the proof that the mechanisms of natural selection are indeed at work, I will get more in depth later, but there is cancer.

I will take a look at this later tonight as well. If you DO decide to post more, I will at least understand everyone has lives and would not expect you to have information BY TONIGHT, but that you would look into it tonight as that is what you literally said.

-Notice the hint at previous discussion along these lines.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I will take a look at this later tonight as well. If you DO decide to post more, I will at least understand everyone has lives and would not expect you to have information BY TONIGHT, but that you would look into it tonight as that is what you literally said.

-Notice the hint at previous discussion along these lines.

Your brain is a tragedy.

You are completely incapable of reason.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Your brain is a tragedy.

You are completely incapable of reason.

And you are a glorified fortune cookie.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
And you are a glorified fortune cookie.

That sounds fine to me!

 

[Zhukov]

I went out smokin' and drinkin' last nite and only got a page writen (mostly introductory stuff) and now the weekend is coming up, which is sure to be filled with more drinkin' and more smokin' and other assorted forms of debauchery, so my thesis on the mechanisms of natural selection is going to be delayed at least until tommorow. Unless of course I don't feel like doing it tommorow either, then Sunday......which is a drinkin' nite....

Your patience is greatly appreciated!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
I went out smokin' and drinkin' last nite and only got a page writen (mostly introductory stuff) and now the weekend is coming up, which is sure to be filled with more drinkin' and more smokin' and other assorted forms of debauchery, so my thesis on the mechanisms of natural selection is going to be delayed at least until tommorow. Unless of course I don't feel like doing it tommorow either, then Sunday......which is a drinkin' nite....

Your patience is greatly appreciated!

We all have lives......well, most do anyway.

Take all the time you need.

 

[Zhukov]

Notice the hint at previous discussion along these lines.

Yes, I caught that.




We shall begin at the beginning:

NewGuy
Darwin has been proved wrong

"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection."
—Charles Darwin from "The Origin of Species"

Introduction:

There once was a man named Charles Darwin. Darwin was the son of Erasmus Darwin, a prolific scientist and inventor who counted among his friends such people as Benjamin Franklin and Joseph Priestly. In the 1830’s Darwin journeyed to the Galapagos Archipelago, a collection of perhaps 17 small islands along the equator off the western coast of South America, and there he noticed that the animal and plant life exhibited characteristics unique on each individual island. Though they may have been members of the same species, the fact of the differing characteristics intrigued him and it prompted him to write On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In this book he described how subtle variations in a species over time, if useful, accumulated, and that given enough time the subtle variations became large differences and new species were created. Darwin did not invent the concept of evolution. That concept existed before him. But, without the knowledge of exactly how genetic information was transferred from parent to offspring, he did develop the idea of the mechanism of evolution: Natural Selection.

There was also a man named Gregor Johann Mendel. Mendel was a monk from Czechoslovakia, and during his studies in the gardens of his monastery in that country he wrote a paper in which he described the laws of heredity. Without any of our common knowledge of chemistry, or genetics, or indeed even proof of the existence of cells, and ignorant of Darwin’s work, Mendel realized that specific visible characteristics of one plant were passed down to most of its offspring. Based upon rules he developed through seven years of experimentation on over 28,000 plants Mendel wrote a paper on the rules of heredity.

As time has progressed we have discovered that means by which genetic information is transferred from a parent to offspring: deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA.

In human beings, or Homo sapiens, we have, as do many other living organisms on this planet, sexual reproduction. That is too say two parents conjoin to produce their offspring. Many lower forms of life simply clone themselves. We posses the ability to create more variety in our offspring because of sexual reproduction. In living organisms that propagate their species via binary fission or cloning or some other form of asexual reproduction their only means to change is directly through genetic mutation. Sexual reproducing organisms have the ability to mix the genetic codes of two individuals to produce progeny with a unique genetic code. Because of the fact that we do not need to rely solely on genetic mutations to beat the obstacles of natural selection our DNA replicating mechanisms a far more reliable that the mechanisms of asexually reproducing organisms.



The Cellular Processes:

The human body has approximately 3,000,000,000 nucleotide base pairs of DNA in every cell of its body. During replication or mRNA transcription the DNA or mRNA, respectively, polymerase protein makes an error roughly every 500,000 pairs. This comes out to about 6,000 mistakes. Faithful DNA replication being vital to perpetuating life, proofreading exonuclease proteins correct almost 100% of these errors, but due to the enormous amount of information being replicated errors are inevitable and about every third time any one of your cells reproduces an error is retained. Fortunately the great bulk of the genetic information encoded in your DNA is junk code, more technically called extrons, and therefore any errors made within these areas are not likely to produce any effect whatsoever.

Now, these replications errors occur in every cell in one’s body, but they are incapable of affecting offspring unless they occur in the cells of gametes or gamete producing organs. When replication errors occur in these types of cells it is known as a germ-line mutation.

The process of evolution through selection of beneficial mutations is easily observed in a petri dish. If a colony of bacteria are exposed to an anti-biotic agent there occurs massive die off. However, some bacteria almost inevitably, through random chance, posses a beneficial genetic mutation that allows them to continue to reproduce. After time, all the bacteria in the petri dish will be immune to the anti-biotic. This is called anti-biotic resistance, and it is the reason why doctors are sometimes reluctant to over prescribe anti-biotic medication. The widespread use of anti-biotics has, through the mechanism of artificial selection, accelerated the evolution of many human effecting bacteria.

One popular proof of the result of germ-line mutations was Queen Victoria of England. Though many of her descendants exhibited the symptoms of and passed along the susceptibility to hemophilia, none of her ancestors had it. A germ-line mutation occurred at some point during the Queen’s life that led to the genetic disease, hemophilia.

The existence of mutations is a proven fact. In fact if it weren’t for mutations scientists would not posses much of the information they have concerning genes and DNA. This is because often the exact nature of what a strand of genetic code is doing is unclear until it stops working. If a mutation occurs within the segment of DNA being examined the protein that segment of DNA codes for will not be made correctly if at all, and when that protein is not present or present in the right form the impact of it’s absence on the cell can be easily evaluated. Once this happens a scientist can say, ‘such and such’ region of the DNA is responsible for ‘that which stopped working when it (the region of DNA) was no longer accurate.’

Diseases and disorders caused by genetic mutations in humans include: cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, Huntington’s disease, progeria, sickle cell anemia, tay-sachs, trisomy, alzheimer’s, Parkinson, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease), and numerous others.



The Population Processes:

What would happen if you took one population (O), separated it into two equal groups, provided a barrier against inter-breeding between the two groups (A and B), and waited a very long time?

Every single germ-line mutation that occurs and is successfully imparted to an offspring (retained) causes a percent change in that offspring’s genetic code from what would otherwise be considered ‘normal’ (O). Now admittedly this percent change will be small because of the large amount of genetic material in any living thing, but it is also calculated cumulatively with any other retained germ-line mutations that might occur in that offspring and any of it’s offspring and descendants.

It is important to understand that these germ-line mutations are completely random. Though it is possible it is highly improbable that the identical germ-line mutation will occur in any other member of that individuals group (A). Just as it is highly improbable that it will occur in any member of the other group (B).

The interactions between members of the same group (A) however allow them to share the relatively unique germ-line mutations amongst each other through the process of sexual reproduction. But there is no similar interaction between members of the other group (B).

Statistical probability will tell us that as time passes and more germ-line mutations are retained in one group (A) of the original population (O), that separate group (A) will begin to deviate more and more from the genetic make-up of the original population (O). The same holds true for the other group (B) with respect to the original population (O), but what is the situation between the two different groups (A and B)?

Since it is statistically unlikely that identical germ-line mutations are occurring in both groups (A and B) simultaneously, it is rational to expect that as time progressed the percent difference between the two groups (A and B) would increase close to twice as fast as any individual group (A or B) moved away from the make-up of the original population (O).

Given enough time, the percent difference between the two groups (A and B) would be sufficient to prevent interbreeding, and thus two new species would have evolved into existence. This is the logical extrapolation Charles Darwin arrived during his studies.

Due to the lengths times associated with humans reaching functional maturity, that is the ability to reproduce, and gestation, the period of time it would take for two isolated groups of human beings to evolve into species separate from one another is long indeed. Magnitudes longer than our recorded history.

With living organisms that take shorter spans of time for both gestation and sexual maturation the process of evolution from one species to another is much quicker.

Insects reproduce both quicker and in greater numbers than human beings. Therefore examples of evolution are more common and therefore more readily observable among insects. Since World War 2 roughly 500 different species have developed immunity to at least one commercially applied insecticide. Many of these species are immune to the entire range of commercial pesticides. As a consequence of man made artificial selection obstacles the awesome reproductive capability of insects coupled with the mechanism of DNA replication, insects have evolved.

The exact evolutionary paths many extinct and extant organisms have taken over the generations is currently a matter of speculation, as there was no one there to directly observe and collect data.

Still, the process of passing on of useful, as determined by the natural processes of selection, genetic information from parent to offspring, as Darwin explained, does indeed occur. Though Darwin in his time may not have known about the chemical interactions associated with the genetics of living organisms, he was correct in his conclusions.

Darwin has not been proven wrong.





References:

Genetic, 3rd Edition, Weaver and Hedrick, Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1997, Dubuque, IA

The World of the Cell, 3rd Edition, Becker, Reece, and Poenie, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1996, Menlo Park, CA

http://www.biopoint.com/engaging/MENDEL/MENDEL.HTM

http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/insect_pests.htm

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/hominids1.html





A site about reconciling faith with evolution:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/discuss_01.html

 

[Isaac Brock]

NewGuy,
I would suggest Guns, Germs and Steel ISBN 0-393-31755-2 by Jared Diamond as a partial answer to your question. It addresses three issues:
- Evolution of man and its biological adaptation of hunting and gathering and subsequent adoptation of agriculture
- Evolution of plant species through interaction with humans beginning with ancient cereal crops to modern fruit plants.
- Societal evolution after the global spread of humans and its relations to local biological and environmental factors (ie why Eurasians adopted civilization sooner than Africans or indigenous people)

Though the book goes beyond the scope of our question to the great societal questions, it does address the beginnings of the human species. It also addresses your comment on carbon dating. The new technique in mass spectromentry circumvents the old problems of carbon movement along geologic stratae by allowing very small samples directly from the object in question. Therefore, the errors associated in taking batch samples from the surrounding layer is reduced, signficantly.

Although, you will no doubt be skeptic, if you truly wish to understand a leading scientific approach to human evolution there is no better source.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Given enough time, the percent difference between the two groups (A and B) would be sufficient to prevent interbreeding, and thus two new species would have evolved into existence. This is the logical extrapolation Charles Darwin arrived during his studies.

Due to the lengths times associated with humans reaching functional maturity, that is the ability to reproduce, and gestation, the period of time it would take for two isolated groups of human beings to evolve into species separate from one another is long indeed. Magnitudes longer than our recorded history.

Wow. Cool. Too bad this is all admitted by you and your source to be THEORY, and therefore not relevant.

Insects reproduce both quicker and in greater numbers than human beings. Therefore examples of evolution are more common and therefore more readily observable among insects. Since World War 2 roughly 500 different species have developed immunity to at least one commercially applied insecticide. Many of these species are immune to the entire range of commercial pesticides. As a consequence of man made artificial selection obstacles the awesome reproductive capability of insects coupled with the mechanism of DNA replication, insects have evolved.

Then as I have asked before:

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

The exact evolutionary paths many extinct and extant organisms have taken over the generations is currently a matter of speculation, as there was no one there to directly observe and collect data.

Exactly my point. Therefore this is not "fact" nor "provable science". -Therefore, not relevant.

-The Bible, DOES however, have documented evidence. Again, I am right, you are not.

Still, the process of passing on of useful, as determined by the natural processes of selection, genetic information from parent to offspring, as Darwin explained, does indeed occur. Though Darwin in his time may not have known about the chemical interactions associated with the genetics of living organisms, he was correct in his conclusions.

Again, not dealing with the complexity of genetic code. And, again:

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Darwin has not been proven wrong.

Oh, contraire, you cannot even prove him RIGHT.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
NewGuy,
I would suggest Guns, Germs and Steel ISBN 0-393-31755-2 by Jared Diamond as a partial answer to your question. It addresses three issues:
- Evolution of man and its biological adaptation of hunting and gathering and subsequent adoptation of agriculture
- Evolution of plant species through interaction with humans beginning with ancient cereal crops to modern fruit plants.
- Societal evolution after the global spread of humans and its relations to local biological and environmental factors (ie why Eurasians adopted civilization sooner than Africans or indigenous people)

Though the book goes beyond the scope of our question to the great societal questions, it does address the beginnings of the human species. It also addresses your comment on carbon dating. The new technique in mass spectromentry circumvents the old problems of carbon movement along geologic stratae by allowing very small samples directly from the object in question. Therefore, the errors associated in taking batch samples from the surrounding layer is reduced, signficantly.

Although, you will no doubt be skeptic, if you truly wish to understand a leading scientific approach to human evolution there is no better source.

Ummm.....I don't care how good the source is if it still cannot prove its point. It doesn't even begin to adress HALF of the issues. If that is the best there is to make a fictional belief almost believable still without scientific proof of fact, then it isn't worth looking at is it?

 

[remie]

[

 

[remie]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
NewGuy,
I would suggest Guns, Germs and Steel ISBN 0-393-31755-2 by Jared Diamond as a partial answer to your question. It addresses three issues:
- Evolution of man and its biological adaptation of hunting and gathering and subsequent adoptation of agriculture
- Evolution of plant species through interaction with humans beginning with ancient cereal crops to modern fruit plants.
- Societal evolution after the global spread of humans and its relations to local biological and environmental factors (ie why Eurasians adopted civilization sooner than Africans or indigenous people)

Though the book goes beyond the scope of our question to the great societal questions, it does address the beginnings of the human species. It also addresses your comment on carbon dating. The new technique in mass spectromentry circumvents the old problems of carbon movement along geologic stratae by allowing very small samples directly from the object in question. Therefore, the errors associated in taking batch samples from the surrounding layer is reduced, signficantly.

Although, you will no doubt be skeptic, if you truly wish to understand a leading scientific approach to human evolution there is no better source.

This is indeed a very good read and makes a very strong case. Definately a good source of info on this subject.