Possible Missing Link

[Lemeja]

This topic is in the process of evolving from a discussion about the missing link to an argument over religion.

 

 

 

I think this topic has already changed species. I miss talking about Google. D:

[MisterGreen]

This topic is in the process of evolving from a discussion about the missing link to an argument over religion.

 

 

 

I think this topic has already changed species. I miss talking about Google. D:

 

 

 

Hardy har har.

[Bauke]

 

The only way DNA can change is in a chaotic way. Cancer is caused by an error in information. Mutations are a loss of information, not a gain. Information doesn't miraculously appear from nowhere.

 

 

Yes, mutations can cause a gain of function. That is undisputably true, Actual extra information, in terms of nucleotides can be achieved by incorporating extra DNA into the genome. There are various ways to take up extra DNA, which I've expressed in my post.

 

 

You're missing the point. Yes, changes can be made but information can only be changed or lost.

 

Nope, like I said nucleotides can be added, and changes can be altered. The molecular mechanisms underlying these processes can be used in the lab to create and customize our bacteria. Viruses can incorporate themselves in our genome, using our molecular machineries that are present in the cell.

 

 

The point I'm trying to make is that a fish can't turn into a man over millions of generations. Evolution has significant flaws. As it stands now it is nothing more than a half truth.

 

 

It's a flaw in your understanding of evolution. A fish can't indeed turn into a man. That's not the point evolution is trying to make. The point is that a fish and a man, somewhere in evolution have had a common ancestor. After that point, the fish and the man took their own ways in the development of their genomes (influenced by point mutation, homologeous recombination, translocations, deletions, incorporation of new DNA (with the aid of viruses and bacteria), etc, etc.

 

 

 

And you'd be surprised to know how much we have in common with the fish. Our embryo's look the same, for example. And all the other things I've stated before in my post.

 

 

Like I said, no new information is gained, just changed or lost. You're basically trying to use my own argument against me, and saying everything I've said is a form of evolution. It's not.

 

 

I don't see how. It's just that your argument is flawed. New information can be gained, and is gained all of the time. That is indisputably true. There are gazillions of examples available, and the resistance of bacteria against antibiotics is one of them.

 

 

 

 

I know evolution and abiogenesis are seperate, which is apparent in my argument. It is foolish, however, to deny that they are unrelated.

 

Then how are they related? Abiogenesis speaks of the creation of life from "dead" material, while evolution speaks about the development of one species to another one.

 

 

What is this evidence you speak of? You are being extremely vague in your answers, posting a lot of irrelevant information, all with terrible grammar.

 

Excuse me? Have you actually read my post? You're coming up with factual wrong arguments and you accuse me of vagueness and irrelevant information?

 

 

 

And how is my grammar bad, or sub par compared to the rest of the forums?

 

I know. I just feel it's extremly [developmentally delayed] that people try to take their religious beliefs into this topic.

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

It distracts this topic totally from the original topic: a possible missing link..

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahah

 

 

 

There really is middle ground you guys. We have a lot of laughs.

 

Glad you like my post, though it saddens me that this is the most intelligent you can come up with.

[Lenticular_J]

Yeah, it is, because all you guys do is throw [cabbage] at each other.

 

 

 

Note: Your insults back and forth are the metaphorical feces. This is why I've pretty much given up on debating, because that's all there is any more. Both sides have pretty valid points, although I still believe in evolution being a keg of gunpowder lit by a match.

[Bauke]

Religion should just stay out of a topic that discusses an evolutionary phenomenon.

 

 

Religions should just [bleep] off and die in general, but hey, everyone's entitled to their own beliefs, even if they're [developmentally delayed]ed.

[Hedgehog]

I am ignorant. I'm not going to deny it. But what I see in my ignorance is different than what you see in your misinformation. I see a world created by something bigger than me. I assume, for all I know, that you all see a world created out of something. But very few people can put a word on that something to give it tangibility.

 

 

 

In my ignorance, I can see a person. A person. A person. Before the person, I see another person, for eras back. What I don't see is a link to be missing. There is no chain with a link that I can see. There may or may not be a rope. Hypothetically speaking, if the rope were there, what would be on one end? What would be on the other?

 

 

 

Any metaphor I can think of leaves two open ends. One end is where it starts, the other where it ends, which I hope you know. Does the rope or whatever start with an immeasurable force, or a lucky chain of events? I'll personally be happy believing both. What do I lose if I believe in a god? What do I lose if I don't?

 

 

 

There's a god: I truly believe, I live in happiness for eternity. I disbelieve, I live for sadness and pain for eternity.

 

There's no god: I truly believe in a god, I slowly rot in a grave, unbeknown to me. I don't believe, I slowly rot in a grave, unbeknown to me.

 

 

 

Two simple choices. I choose to believe. You choose to disbelieve.

 

You risk everything for nothing. I risk nothing for everything. I can spot a difference. Can you?

 

 

 

By no means am I denouncing any of you. I am simply pointing out why you should live with God in your life. I hold respect for all atheists, so long as they admit to being atheist. I hold little respect to someone who claims to follow a life under The Lord yet can't think of a single example to back it up. I am very glad that few of you are like this and can man-up to your decisions.

 

 

 

I really want to be proved wrong. I want to be proved right even more. If it means waiting till my death day, then so be it. I just pray that all of you don't. I pray you all realize it is never to late to change your views.

 

 

 

Have fun.

[Alg]

Religion should just stay out of a topic that discusses an evolutionary phenomenon.

 

 

Religions should just [bleep] off and die in general, but hey, everyone's entitled to their own beliefs, even if they're [developmentally delayed]

 

Can we start with Atheism? :D It's just as much "my beliefs are better than yours" as any other :lol:

 

Though to be honest, religion's thousands of years older than evolution. There are bound to be things we didn't know then that we do now. Just like how we didn't know about that fossil 50 years ago...

 

 

 

Though it's an interesting discovery. A step closer to understanding how things work, and that's a plus. Not going to be that major to most people, understandably.

[Lenticular_J]

Just like we won't know about the next missing link until it's found. Neither religion or science should be treated as an end-all, especially when people are discussing "Why?" and not "How?" Leave how to the mayor and why to the village idiot.

[MisterGreen]

Yes, mutations can cause a gain of function. That is undisputably true, Actual extra information, in terms of nucleotides can be achieved by incorporating extra DNA into the genome. There are various ways to take up extra DNA, which I've expressed in my post.

 

 

 

 

Yes, but it isn't naturally occuring.

 

 

 

 

Nope, like I said nucleotides can be added, and changes can be altered. The molecular mechanisms underlying these processes can be used in the lab to create and customize our bacteria. Viruses can incorporate themselves in our genome, using our molecular machineries that are present in the cell.

 

 

 

 

Yes nucleotides can be added artificially, but a lab is not nature. How is a virus invading a cell and basically changing it into a virus factory and eventually destroying the cell beneficial? It sounds a bit chaotic, doesn't it?

 

 

 

 

It's a flaw in your understanding of evolution. A fish can't indeed turn into a man. That's not the point evolution is trying to make. The point is that a fish and a man, somewhere in evolution have had a common ancestor. After that point, the fish and the man took their own ways in the development of their genomes (influenced by point mutation, homologeous recombination, translocations, deletions, incorporation of new DNA (with the aid of viruses and bacteria), etc, etc.

 

 

 

How is it a flaw in my understanding? Evolution is changes in something that occur over millions years and many generations and may result in a new species. According to evolution, it is indeed possible for something like this to occur.

 

 

 

Last time I checked, what virus's do to people is not beneficial.

 

 

 

 

And you'd be surprised to know how much we have in common with the fish. Our embryo's look the same, for example. And all the other things I've stated before in my post.

 

 

 

I don't see how. It's just that your argument is flawed. New information can be gained, and is gained all of the time. That is indisputably true. There are gazillions of examples available, and the resistance of bacteria against antibiotics is one of them.

 

 

 

Yet you have not provided even one of these 'gazillions' of examples, simply brush off my argument as flawed, and proclaim it to be true. I smell denial.

 

 

 

 

Then how are they related? Abiogenesis speaks of the creation of life from "dead" material, while evolution speaks about the development of one species to another one.

 

 

 

 

Abiogenesis speaks of life spontaneosly springing up from a primordial soup(which to this day no one has been able to do), not "dead" material. They are related because both deal with information coming from nowhere. Changing a function that already exists is one thing, but changing something that exists into something else entirely is false. (In natural situations.)

 

 

 

Animals and Humans cannot gain functions that are not already encoded in DNA, it can be changed around, but organisms cannot obtain "new" functions. They lose information over time, not gain information. Supposedly "new" information that may appear is something that has been there since the beginning. It simply has been inactive.

 

 

 

 

Excuse me? Have you actually read my post? You're coming up with factual wrong arguments and you accuse me of vagueness and irrelevant information?

 

 

 

And how is my grammar bad, or sub par compared to the rest of the forums?

 

My information has been backed up, yours has not.

 

 

 

On the last part, you got me there. Your grammar isn't that bad compared to the rest of the forums, but may I suggest proofreading your posts...

[Lenin64]

You know, I didn't realize we still had guys like hedgehog here. Huh.

 

 

 

Two simple choices. I choose to believe. You choose to disbelieve.

 

You risk everything for nothing. I risk nothing for everything. I can spot a difference. Can you?

 

Yup. We've got a pair and aren't taking the easy way out. That's something that always bugged me, really, that people use that explanation. My grandmother tried to convince me once with precisely that idea. I see the point, though, and covering my [wagon] is something I do on a regular basis.

 

 

 

Anyways, how 'bout that fossil? Gotta love thumbs.

[Nenga]

I am ignorant. I'm not going to deny it. But what I see in my ignorance is different than what you see in your misinformation. I see a world created by something bigger than me. I assume, for all I know, that you all see a world created out of something. But very few people can put a word on that something to give it tangibility.

 

 

 

In my ignorance, I can see a person. A person. A person. Before the person, I see another person, for eras back. What I don't see is a link to be missing. There is no chain with a link that I can see. There may or may not be a rope. Hypothetically speaking, if the rope were there, what would be on one end? What would be on the other?

 

 

 

Any metaphor I can think of leaves two open ends. One end is where it starts, the other where it ends, which I hope you know. Does the rope or whatever start with an immeasurable force, or a lucky chain of events? I'll personally be happy believing both. What do I lose if I believe in a god? What do I lose if I don't?

 

 

 

There's a god: I truly believe, I live in happiness for eternity. I disbelieve, I live for sadness and pain for eternity.

 

There's no god: I truly believe in a god, I slowly rot in a grave, unbeknown to me. I don't believe, I slowly rot in a grave, unbeknown to me.

 

 

 

Two simple choices. I choose to believe. You choose to disbelieve.

 

You risk everything for nothing. I risk nothing for everything. I can spot a difference. Can you?

 

 

 

By no means am I denouncing any of you. I am simply pointing out why you should live with God in your life. I hold respect for all atheists, so long as they admit to being atheist. I hold little respect to someone who claims to follow a life under The Lord yet can't think of a single example to back it up. I am very glad that few of you are like this and can man-up to your decisions.

 

 

 

I really want to be proved wrong. I want to be proved right even more. If it means waiting till my death day, then so be it. I just pray that all of you don't. I pray you all realize it is never to late to change your views.

 

 

 

Have fun.

 

It's fine that you believe in god but don't push that on people. This wasn't about god or no god originally, this was about an old fossil that people found. The point of science is not to disprove god, only to explain things around us. They are not the same thing so don't act like they are.

[Kenshinjapan]

Life mage, discovering new ideas to solve the mysteries of the world and attempting to disprove religions go hand in hand.

[warri0r45]

Animals and Humans cannot gain functions that are not already encoded in DNA, it can be changed around, but organisms cannot obtain "new" functions. They lose information over time, not gain information. Supposedly "new" information that may appear is something that has been there since the beginning. It simply has been inactive.

 

 

 

That's wrong, sorry.

 

 

 

Slabs of genetic information, including genes, can duplicate due to unequal crossing over (genetic recombination) between chromosomes. The copied genes are then free to accumulate new mutations to suit different functions. Take the beta-globin gene family for example. [1] All of these genes and their corresponding proteins have similar but non-identical sequences and similar yet distinct functions. In fact, it's the subtle differences between the globin genes that make oxygen transport from mother to embryo/fetus possible.

 

 

 

Next, there's exon shuffling. Again by unequal crossing over, exons can be shuffled between genes, if the break points occur in the introns of a gene. There's also retrotransposons such as L1 that have the capacity to take a small bit of genetic information with them as they move and "build" new genes with the exons they carry. [2] Many genes in higher eukaryotes like us appear to be have common protein domains (encoded by individual exons) sourced from a gene which has a completely different function.

 

 

 

Finally, there's genome duplication. Due to a failure of meiosis (cell division), a particular organism can be left with extra copies of the entire genome, plenty of new information that can be sculpted by further mutations.

 

 

 

When it really comes down to it, most of the raw novelty we see in biology comes from point mutations and things of that scale. All the mechanisms I've explained allow for the evolutionary process to happen, but they don't necessarily add much "new information". As it turns out, evolution is a massive innovator; it's not so much of an inventor. As Bauke explained, the same biological signalling and developmental pathways are seen in most animals with little need for massively different processes, hence why a massive remodelling when evolving a new species isn't necessary. It would seem most morphological difference between species is down to the timing of development and the selectivity of gene expression (including alternate splicing of introns).

 

 

 

As for the second law, it's an easy argument to debunk. Consider the development of a human being from a zygote. It's a massively "order-intensive" (i.e. entropy defying) process, yes? Well how does that gel with the second law? The answer is the constant input of energy to overcome thermodynamically unfavourable reactions that synthesise complex polymeric molecules from monomeric precursors. As long as something can develop, it can evolve. All evolution requires, when you get down to it, is mutation, i.e. a change in the DNA of an organism's genome. Ironically, it's the allowance of these mutations - which by their nature disorder the status quo - that make evolution possible.

 

 

 

As for the actual topic, it's an interesting find. Hopefully they can find more of these things. At least a discovery like this makes it easier to know where to look.

[Bauke]

Yes, mutations can cause a gain of function. That is undisputably true, Actual extra information, in terms of nucleotides can be achieved by incorporating extra DNA into the genome. There are various ways to take up extra DNA, which I've expressed in my post.

 

 

 

 

Yes, but it isn't naturally occuring.

 

 

It does, although not quite often, and mostly in a pathological way. Though, in the past, these mechanisms have helped to build up our DNA strands.

 

 

Yes nucleotides can be added artificially, but a lab is not nature. How is a virus invading a cell and basically changing it into a virus factory and eventually destroying the cell beneficial? It sounds a bit chaotic, doesn't it?

 

 

It doesn't destroy the cell, nor is it artificial. Yes it is, in the lab, but we use the same mechanisms found in nature.

 

 

How is it a flaw in my understanding? Evolution is changes in something that occur over millions years and many generations and may result in a new species. According to evolution, it is indeed possible for something like this to occur.

 

 

But it has not occured and it is pretty much impossible that it will happen.

 

 

Last time I checked, what virus's do to people is not beneficial.

 

 

Today, a virus is a pathological particle. But in the early stages of life, it could have been the source of our primary building blocks, a virus-like particle able to accumulate DNA, and mutate, and thus promote diversion.

 

 

Yet you have not provided even one of these 'gazillions' of examples, simply brush off my argument as flawed, and proclaim it to be true. I smell denial.

 

 

I think the antibiotics resistance of bacteria is a perfect example of how information can be gained. It can just happen in all ways possible. Selection pressure, changeable DNA, and you see that over time new genes are added to the genome, built out of the same strand of DNA, but with different nucleotides, and thus a different subset of information.

 

 

 

It's not that hard to imagine either. Lets say we have a bit of junk DNA. We induce a few mutations, so that a TATA sequence arises. A TATA sequence is usually a promotor region, so transcription factors can bind. Add a few more proteins and mutations over time, and RNA polymerase II is able to bind, and transcribe the DNA. A few more mutations downstream the bit of DNA, and we have a stop codon. Since DNA is changeable, it can all happen. Highly unlikely the way I described it, but in the course of evolution information has been added continuously.

 

 

Then how are they related? Abiogenesis speaks of the creation of life from "dead" material, while evolution speaks about the development of one species to another one.

 

 

 

 

 

Animals and Humans cannot gain functions that are not already encoded in DNA, it can be changed around, but organisms cannot obtain "new" functions. They lose information over time, not gain information. Supposedly "new" information that may appear is something that has been there since the beginning. It simply has been inactive.

 

 

No. I have no idea how you've came up with this, but this is just totally wrong. DNA is very changeable. We have 6 billion nucleotides, and only a part of them provide information. It is no more than logic that

 

 

My information has been backed up, yours has not.

 

 

Wrong. Basic biological principles point in the other direction. And gain of function is something EVERY biologist works with. This is established knowledge in the field of genetics.

[Nenga]

Life mage, discovering new ideas to solve the mysteries of the world and attempting to disprove religions go hand in hand.

 

Yes they do, it's a cause and effect. But I doubt any biologist is in his lab going "Ok, lets disprove us some god today." (probably because it's horrible grammar) It's a side effect that as people understand more they generally move away from theories that have been guessed at with no proof.

[Bauke]

Science does not seek to disprove religion, because religion is based on fantasy and can thus not be scientifically disproven. There needs to be at least something that can be tried to disprove. Instead science just focuses on improving the knowledge of the things that happen around us, based on actual evidence and empirical findings.

[Kiriyama]

Life mage, discovering new ideas to solve the mysteries of the world and attempting to disprove religions go hand in hand.

 

Yes they do, it's a cause and effect. But I doubt any biologist is in his lab going "Ok, lets disprove us some god today." (probably because it's horrible grammar) It's a side effect that as people understand more they generally move away from theories that have been guessed at with no proof.

 

 

 

And if it were to be found, scientifically, that there was a higher diety, then it'd raise more questions.

 

 

 

What created it?

 

How did it gain its powers?

 

 

 

It'd be a neverending cycle if we manage to prove one, its better just to understand what there is solid proof for at the moment.

[unkn0wnwarrior]

Igoring all of the religion vs science in this thread, I think this is a very interesting discovery. I figured we had just about reached the end of the line in the evolution theory, and then this discovery pops up... From 1983 no less!

[AceBeam]

According to Cynic's signature:

 

 

 

"The missing link between animals and the real human being is most likely ourselves."

 

~ Konrad Lorenz

 

 

 

Wrong :o

 

WE have been defined already as Human Beings. Thats what the scientist guys and there smartman words said. We are not even a missing link, we know we exist :P we are the link from now to the future us. Which will not be called Human Beings.

[fastortoise]

Igoring all of the religion vs science in this thread, I think this is a very interesting discovery. I figured we had just about reached the end of the line in the evolution theory, and then this discovery pops up... From 1983 no less!

 

I'm just sad they didn't get any DNA from it. I never liked how taxonomists classed species based on their anatomy, I prefer when people make the links based on DNA. I'm still waiting on an evo-devo scientist to start compiling a new life tree based solely on DNA-relatedness.. I got the idea during a genetics exam, wrote a paragraph on the last page and my teacher loved the idea. The only setback, however, is that a project at such a large scale would require thousands of scientists and super-computers.

 

 

 

Linking species through DNA-relatedness would finally put an end to all the bickering between Biologists that never leads anywhere, and could help scientists have a more concrete evidence for their research.

[unkn0wnwarrior]

Igoring all of the religion vs science in this thread, I think this is a very interesting discovery. I figured we had just about reached the end of the line in the evolution theory, and then this discovery pops up... From 1983 no less!

 

I'm just sad they didn't get any DNA from it. I never liked how taxonomists classed species based on their anatomy, I prefer when people make the links based on DNA. I'm still waiting on an evo-devo scientist to start compiling a new life tree based solely on DNA-relatedness.. I got the idea during a genetics exam, wrote a paragraph on the last page and my teacher loved the idea. The only setback, however, is that a project at such a large scale would require thousands of scientists and super-computers.

 

 

 

Linking species through DNA-relatedness would finally put an end to all the bickering between Biologists that never leads anywhere, and could help scientists have a more concrete evidence for their research.

 

Yes, that is a shame, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

[Alg]

Science does not seek to disprove religion, because religion is based on fantasy and can thus not be scientifically disproven. There needs to be at least something that can be tried to disprove. Instead science just focuses on improving the knowledge of the things that happen around us, based on actual evidence and empirical findings.

 

Actually, one could say that religion was the first stab at actually understanding the world around us; It's only fantasy because a lot of questions posed 2,000+ years ago were answered. How did we get here? We were created this way. Why do we suffer? Our creator is punishing us for something. What happens when I die? You go to live with your creator if you're good. Why are we 'intelligent' when animals are not? Because God made us after Him. Even now, religion is there to answer the unanswered... The flaws existing because we're greedy when we have power. "Give me that thing." "No." "But God says you have to. "

[i_love_burritos]

According to Cynic's signature:

 

 

 

"The missing link between animals and the real human being is most likely ourselves."

 

~ Konrad Lorenz

 

 

 

Wrong :o

 

WE have been defined already as Human Beings. Thats what the scientist guys and there smartman words said. We are not even a missing link, we know we exist :P we are the link from now to the future us. Which will not be called Human Beings.

 

 

 

:?

 

 

 

I think you missed the point. "Konrad Lorenz" was not arguing the existence or development of the current human beings or anything regarding "science", but instead commenting on human qualitites and behaviour etc...

 

 

 

EDIT: Fastortise, have you heard of the pentadactyl limb ? Sure it may be more practical and logical to classify organisms based on their DNA relatedness, but that is not visible to the eye. Taxonomists arrange it that way because you can see a logical and easy to understand progression of, well "the body".

[fastortoise]

EDIT: Fastortise, have you heard of the pentadactyl limb ? Sure it may be more practical and logical to classify organisms based on their DNA relatedness, but that is not visible to the eye. Taxonomists arrange it that way because you can see a logical and easy to understand progression of, well "the body".

 

Sure I've heard of an arm before :lol:

 

But seriously, even though it's a pretty accurate way for detecting common ancestry, the pentadactyl limb only applies to tetrapods. I'm talking about a universal tree for ALL species, and since the only thing that unifies all living organisms is DNA, I want to see a DNA-tree.

[Bauke]

Science does not seek to disprove religion, because religion is based on fantasy and can thus not be scientifically disproven. There needs to be at least something that can be tried to disprove. Instead science just focuses on improving the knowledge of the things that happen around us, based on actual evidence and empirical findings.

 

Actually, one could say that religion was the first stab at actually understanding the world around us; It's only fantasy because a lot of questions posed 2,000+ years ago were answered. How did we get here? We were created this way. Why do we suffer? Our creator is punishing us for something. What happens when I die? You go to live with your creator if you're good. Why are we 'intelligent' when animals are not? Because God made us after Him. Even now, religion is there to answer the unanswered... The flaws existing because we're greedy when we have power. "Give me that thing." "No." "But God says you have to. "

 

I want my answers based on something that was not made up by man and I want it backed up by proof. So no religion for me.

 

 

 

If it wasn't for science, the world would still be flat.

 

 

 

And that's the last thing I'm going to say about it, damnit. I want to hear stuff about the fossil, no religious muttering that I've heard over and over.