Question on Evolution

[unrealchris]

1. I've never seen a pavement special that looked the same. They exhibit a huge diversity in size, colour and morphology.

2. Artificial selection can occur in nature without human intervention.

+ 1

[empirex]

From the bit I have read about epigenetics it enhances and compliments evolution, not counter it.

Epigenetics is the so called short term "memory" of DNA or that is how I see it. Please can you explain how transferring information in an added layer is supposed to counter or disprove everything that we place under the term evolution?

On the contrary it directly contradicts evolutionary theory which is based on the Central Dogma of molecular biology.

If we are one long evolutionary chain of events emerging from either an RNA or DNA orgin, how did this level above DNA, that controls DNA expression, arise.
It comes down to that puzzle that still haunts us to this day, but is now, within the epigenome, being unravelled -- where the body plan for an organism is located. We are now coming to realise that it is located within the very 3D structure of the cell.

There are several levels to the epigenome (I'm no expert, there could be more):
1. The tagging of histone tails; and methyl tagging of Cytosine within DNA (tagging is usually associated with switching off genes in a cell).
It's important to note that these tags are also copied and transferred on to offspring.

2. The actual shape of DNA -- the manner in which it is actually wound up around the histone spool.

3. The 3D code for the body plan of an organism is located in the 3D structure of the cell. Right from it's initial formation that code is programmed within the zygote.

Remember, the genome is identical in all cell types -- while each epigenome varies; 200+ cell types, so 200+ types of epigenome.

In summary, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis holds to the Central Dogma, but we cannot have evolved from a point of randomness, when that very evolutionary process excludes the creation of the body plan or epigenome.

[Mineer]

Evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution is drawn from nearly every branch of the physical sciences in existence today. Examples include (but are certainly not limited to): Geology, Biology, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Zoology, Botany, Molecular Biology.

Frankly my arms would get tired formulating the list. If your argument is that there is no evidence in favour of evolution that also demonstrates that the idea of a 6 day creation x number of thousand years ago didn't happen then you are going to be laughed at. Heck you get presented with that sort of evidence in high school let alone university.



I'm doing no such thing. I'm merely tired of you ignoring everyone's pleas to keep atheism and cosmology out of a discussion about evolution. They have fsck all to do with evolution. You have already admitted as such. Now stop trying to include them in this discussion.

As to epigenetics sure you get methylation events and all sorts that can work wonders on the eventual products of gene expression. Absolutely amazing... has nothign to do with disproving evolution though as far as I can see, that part you cooked that part up along with the RFID tag conspiracy.

while I don't directly disagree with your post I just notice something,
If it evolution has nothing to do with atheism and cosmology, then but same reasoning it has nothing to do with religion / a view I support as evolution theory nether supports nor denies the existence of a God

[porchrat]

On the contrary it directly contradicts evolutionary theory which is based on the Central Dogma of molecular biology.

If we are one long evolutionary chain of events emerging from either an RNA or DNA orgin, how did this level above DNA, that controls DNA expression, arise.
It comes down to that puzzle that still haunts us to this day, but is now, within the epigenome, being unravelled -- where the body plan for an organism is located. We are now coming to realise that it is located within the very 3D structure of the cell.

There are several levels to the epigenome (I'm no expert, there could be more):
1. The tagging of histone tails; and methyl tagging of Cytosine within DNA (tagging is usually associated with switching off genes in a cell).
It's important to note that these tags are also copied and transferred on to offspring.

2. The actual shape of DNA -- the manner in which it is actually wound up around the histone spool.

3. The 3D code for the body plan of an organism is located in the 3D structure of the cell. Right from it's initial formation that code is programmed within the zygote.

Remember, the genome is identical in all cell types -- while each epigenome varies; 200+ cell types, so 200+ types of epigenome.

In summary, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis holds to the Central Dogma, but we cannot have evolved from a point of randomness, when that very evolutionary process excludes the creation of the body plan or epigenome.

Woah woah woah I think you are giving epigenetics waaaaaaay too much credit here. Sure epigenetics is important but at the end of the day it is just another layer in the regulation of gene expression. Ultimately this is still to do with DNA and RNA as a base, just with this extra layer on top. This isn't something nullifying DNA and RNA.

Also remember that this is still at it's base level populations responding to pressures exerted upon them by the environment. This is still evolution. Why you would think that evolution specifically excludes the concept of an epigenome I don't know. I think perhaps you need to do a little more reading on the subject... and by reading I don't mean fundie blogs. Either that or provide the articles from which you draw this conclusion.

Evolution is about the inheritence of beneficial traits between generations. Epigenetics fits into that quite nicely.

[porchrat]

while I don't directly disagree with your post I just notice something,
If it evolution has nothing to do with atheism and cosmology, then but same reasoning it has nothing to do with religion / a view I support as evolution theory nether supports nor denies the existence of a God

Evolution becomes about religion only when idiots people reject evolutionary theories on religious grounds.

Frankly I agree with you - evolution has nothing to do with gods or religion as it makes no claims either way. It is science and science CANNOT make claims about religion unless religions are making a claim based in the physical world... then science can check for these phenomena. Accepting evolution doesn't in any way mean you have to reject your deity.

[empirex]

Woah woah woah I think you are giving epigenetics waaaaaaay too much credit here. Sure epigenetics is important but at the end of the day it is just another layer in the regulation of gene expression. Ultimately this is still to do with DNA and RNA as a base, just with this extra layer on top. This isn't something nullifying DNA and RNA.

No, of course it doesn't nullify DNA; the epigenome/s compliments and works in conjunction with DNA.

You're missing an important point that I'm making here. The modern evolutionary synthesis, or neo-Darwinism, is founded on the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection right.

So firstly, and this also stretches back to an RNA / DNA world, the mutation of said nucleotides CANNOT be solely responsible for an organism's evolution AND body plan. In the past it could be accepted as such, because we were unaware of the function that the epigenome played within an organisms creation.

But now that we know it exists, these mechanisms and pathways just cannot account for it's evolution within the current evolutionary paradigm. ie. -- where and how did the blueprint / body plan for life evolve; the one that governs DNA. Which leads to..

Secondly, the epigenome would have to evolve simultaneosuly, or in conjunction with DNA, or it would conflict with the epigenome, ie. the epigenome holds the blueprint for an organism, while DNA is the library. Two separate, yet highly important entities -- that cannot function at odds or in conflict.

The DNA library contains the data but cannot override with the blueprint. That is why microevolution is a fact as there IS a certain amount of leeway within the bodyplan (colour, size, etc.)
But macroevolution is not possible as it would conflict with the overarching epigenome.

Also remember that this is still at it's base level populations responding to pressures exerted upon them by the environment. This is still evolution. Why you would think that evolution specifically excludes the concept of an epigenome I don't know. I think perhaps you need to do a little more reading on the subject... and by reading I don't mean fundie blogs. Either that or provide the articles from which you draw this conclusion.

Do some reading yourself, see what you find..
Sure will post the articles tomorrow.

[porchrat]

No, of course it doesn't nullify DNA; the epigenome/s compliments and works in conjunction with DNA.

You're missing an important point that I'm making here. The modern evolutionary synthesis, or neo-Darwinism, is founded on the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection right.

So firstly, and this also stretches back to an RNA / DNA world, the mutation of said nucleotides CANNOT be solely responsible for an organism's evolution AND body plan. In the past it could be accepted as such, because we were unaware of the function that the epigenome played within an organisms creation.

But now that we know it exists, these mechanisms and pathways just cannot account for it's evolution within the current evolutionary paradigm. ie. -- where and how did the blueprint / body plan for life evolve; the one that governs DNA. Which leads to..

DNA is a molecule... is can't evolve.

Secondly, the epigenome would have to evolve simultaneosuly, or in conjunction with DNA, or it would conflict with the epigenome, ie. the epigenome holds the blueprint for an organism, while DNA is the library. Two separate, yet highly important entities -- that cannot function at odds or in conflict.

It doesn't have to have emerged simultaneously. It could very well have come after DNA. It just couldn't have come before.

That is like saying that ALL the regulatory mechanisms we have in place in our bodies today would have to have all evolved simultaneously just because they all work in concert. This is simply not true.

The DNA library contains the data but cannot override with the blueprint. That is why microevolution is a fact as there IS a certain amount of leeway within the bodyplan (colour, size, etc.)
But macroevolution is not possible as it would conflict with the overarching epigenome.

Bah macroevolution.

Mutations in the genome occur all the time. To claim that that would now conflict with the epigenome means (as far as my understanding of genetics and epigenetics goes) that you don't understand epigenetics well enough and definitely need to read more on the subject. The epigenome works in concert with the genome but that doesn't mean that a change in the genome cannot be incorporated into the epigenome. Also remember that not all transcribed genetic material necessarily undergoes post transcriptional modification. Also that that post transiptional modificiation is some or other chemical reaction such as a methylation. A change in one nucleotide or a few at a time is in many cases not going to be enough to prevent that reaction from occurring.

Sure will post the articles tomorrow.

yay!

[empirex]

yay!

Start with these:
For the layperson such as you and I
Epigenetics: The Ultimate Mystery of Inheritance by Richard Francis
The Mysterious Epigenome by Thomas Woodward & James Gills

For those a little more versed in biology:
Handbook of Epigenetics by Trygve Tollefsbol
The Epigenome: Molecular Hide and Seek by Stephen Beck & Alexander Olek
Epigenetics by C David Allis

[Randhir]

Start with these:
For the layperson such as you and I
Epigenetics: The Ultimate Mystery of Inheritance by Richard Francis
The Mysterious Epigenome by Thomas Woodward & James Gills

For those a little more versed in biology:
Handbook of Epigenetics by Trygve Tollefsbol
The Epigenome: Molecular Hide and Seek by Stephen Beck & Alexander Olek
Epigenetics by C David Allis

How many of those are articles?

[empirex]

How many of those are articles?

None, they reference articles.
Why would you like the actual articles themselves?

[porchrat]

How many of those are articles?

^this.

I want the articles. In my experience books are a ridiculously inefficient way to get this sort of information. Don't worry about me getting the full text I should be quite capable of tracking them down. Just the references should be sufficient.

None, they reference articles.
Why would you like the actual articles themselves?

Yes please. The references to the relevant ones please.

[empirex]

^this.

I want the articles. In my experience books are a ridiculously inefficient way to get this sort of information. Don't worry about me getting the full text I should be quite capable of tracking them down. Just the references should be sufficient.

Yes please. The references to the relevant ones please.

Ah crap, that means I have to type them out from the notes section, tell you what if there are too many with extra long url's I'll take a I'll just take a picture of the reference section and post it up here.

Books are inefficient? On the contrary, I find them to be the most efficient way of combining many articles into one condensed source.

[porchrat]

Ah crap, that means I have to type them out from the notes section, tell you what if there are too many with extra long url's I'll take a I'll just take a picture of the reference section and post it up here.

Man I don't want to sift through ALL the references. Just the key ones. Surely the important bits are referenced in the text? Just pull those few out.

Books are inefficient? On the contrary, I find them to be the most efficient way of combining many articles into one condensed source.

Nah there are articles that do that and they don't take up 100s of pages. Those are the things you need to look for. Nice condensed information. Sure not everyone can read them so the books present the stuff in a way that is easy for everyone to understand but I usually find I'm fine with articles, especially those coming from the fields of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry.

[copacetic]

While I'm inclined to give empirex the benefit of the doubt, since I don't know them from a bar of soap, the sort of behaviour anticipated and described by Rhandir is typical of a professional internet troll.

They are well-versed in not being pinned down, but are able to muddy the waters, and engage in ****-stirring while displaying wide-eyed innocence at the simply outrageous notion that they might be involved in these discussions for any other reason than wholesome and honest debate, and any person daring to call them out, is clearly the problem.

That said, the best thing anyone can do, in order to facilitate the topic at hand, is to either ignore irrelevant stuff, or report it to the mods. Bitching about bitching will achieve precisely ****all.

[empirex]

While I'm inclined to give empirex the benefit of the doubt, since I don't know them from a bar of soap, the sort of behaviour anticipated and described by Rhandir is typical of a professional internet troll.

They are well-versed in not being pinned down, but are able to muddy the waters, and engage in ****-stirring while displaying wide-eyed innocence at the simply outrageous notion that they might be involved in these discussions for any other reason than wholesome and honest debate, and any person daring to call them out, is clearly the problem.

That said, the best thing anyone can do, in order to facilitate the topic at hand, is to either ignore irrelevant stuff, or report it to the mods. Bitching about bitching will achieve precisely ****all.

Here's the thing, these guys will more than likely tell you themselves that when it comes to any other issues, I'm just like the rest of the okes over there, and we all get on just fine. I enjoy biltong, braai's, rugby, metal (because any other kind of music isn't music, right.. ) and fast cars, skydiving, rock climbing and all the other things we enjoy.

The problem is that I'm a Christian and I think evolution is wrong. That is considered near unacceptable by certain people.
Now given that I was pretty well the only person that debated in favour of creationism and ID in terms of biological proofs, I was always the one that attracted the most attention and what can inevitably turn into a heated debate at times. So I was then singled out because of this. Evolution and it's merits is now never raised over there.

I believe the evidence argues against random creation or evolution, but I also have no problem if someone argues the opposite. But argue the point and not the man, and then at the end of the day we shake hands, say well done, and move on.

I make no apologies for my views, and neither do I force them on anyone, but that is what a public forum is for right, debate and such.

I will admit that ps3za in the end was perhaps not the right place for me, as even though my journey over there started with a love of PS3 and retro gaming, I have recently lost interest to a large degree in gaming and so focus on other issues.
Anyway this is just so that you have my perspective on things as opposed to only Rhandir's view. That's me done on the subject.