|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are there evolutionary reasons for reproduction? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
misha Member (Idle past 4657 days) Posts: 69 From: Atlanta Joined: |
dennis780 writes: Since Apes have brown eyes, their alleles code for AA (A or a being dominant or recessive traits respectively). Since brown eyes are dominant, and apes are homogenius dominant A, it's not possible for humans to have any recessive colors of eyes, such as blue or green. Even if by random mutation, one member of a primative species (that led to humaniods today) did get a recessive (a), the odds of the offspring recieving that trait is still 0%, as the mate would be AA, and the other would be Aa, leaving only the possibility of AA (50%), or Aa (50%). The offspring (if coded for Aa from the respective mate) would have the same odds, 50/50, but eye colour would still be brown as 2 recessive genes are required (aa).
I don't believe you have thought this through at all. Either that or you are severely lacking in logical skills. You've forgotten to go one generation further. 1. In your hypothetical situation ALL apes have brown eyes and the allele combination AA. 2. You state that if ONE ape has a genetic mutation resulting in a recessive "a" allele that the probability of this genetic variation persisting is 0%. This is not only wrong its HORRIBLY wrong. EX: Generation 1: All AA except one mutant AaGeneration 2: All AA parent pairs produce AA offspring. However, Aa parent produces 50% Aa offspring. Generation 3: All AA parent pairs produce AA offspring. AA/Aa parent pairs produce 50% Aa offspring. However, if two of the Aa offspring from Generation 2 reproduce together they produce 25% AA, 50% Aa and 25% aa offspring. So, the 3rd Generation is the first in which a recessive allele mutation could possibly show up. Granted it is more likely that it won't show up in the 3rd Generation but it is inevitable that it will show up. As long as Aa parents continue to reproduce they will produce 50% Aa offspring and so sooner or later the population will have enough Aa offspring for these to reproduce together, resulting in an "aa" offspring. So, the probability of a recessive gene holding in a population and being expressed is not 0%. As long as Aa parents reproduce the probability of producing an "aa" offspring is close to 100%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4805 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"Should we also assume that you didn't know such mechanisms are far from perfect"
quote:DNA replication - Wikipedia Wiki seems to be on my side. "This is not really correct, both purines (A,G) and pyrimidines (C,T,U) can be produced from prebiotic precursors without the need for any enzymes" This may be true, but you are missing the point. Without the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere, there wouldn't be an ozone (O3) layer, protecting the earth from harmful radiation. And perhaps even though it is plausible that certain purines could exist, you would need more than two to form useful information in RNA. With only two nucleic acids (adenine and guanine), you still do not have a complete RNA, that accomplishes three main things: 1. Is stable (without ribonucleic acid) 2. Can be copied. 3. Contains useful information. (The only sequence possible with two acids is AG, or GA. However, Adenine and Guanine do not pair today, so this is unlikely. Regardless, you have no useful information). "alternative chemical routes to RNA production which have yet to be properly explored" Then I suppose we will get to them when the scientists do, hey? Can I say evidence for creation is the returning of God to judge the world? No, because it hasn't happened yet, so it's out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4805 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"In your hypothetical situation ALL apes have brown eyes and the allele combination AA."
This is not hypothetical, since all apes have brown eyes, which would suggest that any common ancestor to humans and apes did not have any such mutation. "So, the probability of a recessive gene holding in a population and being expressed is not 0%. As long as Aa parents reproduce the probability of producing an "aa" offspring is close to 100%.
I don't believe you have thought this through at all. Either that or you are severely lacking in logical skills. You've forgotten to go one generation further. 1. In your hypothetical situation ALL apes have brown eyes and the allele combination AA. 2. You state that if ONE ape has a genetic mutation resulting in a recessive "a" allele that the probability of this genetic variation persisting is 0%. This is not only wrong its HORRIBLY wrong. EX: Generation 1: All AA except one mutant AaGeneration 2: All AA parent pairs produce AA offspring. However, Aa parent produces 50% Aa offspring. Generation 3: All AA parent pairs produce AA offspring. AA/Aa parent pairs produce 50% Aa offspring. However, if two of the Aa offspring from Generation 2 reproduce together they produce 25% AA, 50% Aa and 25% aa offspring. So, the 3rd Generation is the first in which a recessive allele mutation could possibly show up. Granted it is more likely that it won't show up in the 3rd Generation but it is inevitable that it will show up. As long as Aa parents continue to reproduce they will produce 50% Aa offspring and so sooner or later the population will have enough Aa offspring for these to reproduce together, resulting in an "aa" offspring. So, the probability of a recessive gene holding in a population and being expressed is not 0%. As long as Aa parents reproduce the probability of producing an "aa" offspring is close to 100%." If apes were monogamous, this would be true. But since most species of primate breed polygamously, the odds do not increase as quickly as in monogamous. Supposing Genetic mutated (Aa) was born, and passed on to offspring (Aa) and (Aa), (25% chance respectively...unlikely, but plausible). Offspring would breed outside family line with other (AA) in troop (25% respectively). During which, of course, (AA) continues to reproduce with (AA), 100% chance of (AA). The likelihood of passing (Aa) until (Aa) and (Aa) create (aa) is so minute, it hurts my brain to think about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Since Apes have brown eyes, their alleles code for AA... All of 'em?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I know it is an FLK(funny looking kid), but it is still an ape. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Wiki seems to be on my side. Good for you, but their 'near perfect' is still far from perfect, if you see what I mean. As an error correcting mechanism it is very efficient, but the sheer volumes of genetic material involved mean that mutations are an inevitable result. There is plenty of research on the mutation rate, if you can show me any that says the mutation rate is 0 I'll be very surprised. In fact in Wikipedia the very words 'near perfect' are a link to the wiki article on mutation.
Without the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere, there wouldn't be an ozone (O3) layer, protecting the earth from harmful radiation. Wow, you just totally changed the premise of your argument, nice goal post shift. The most commonly posited explanation for this is that life arose in the oceans, where a depth of ~30 metres would reduce the radiative effects to equivalent to those of the modern day.
And perhaps even though it is plausible that certain purines could exist Did you miss the paper I linked to discussing pyrimidine synthesis?
3. Contains useful information. (The only sequence possible with two acids is AG, or GA. However, Adenine and Guanine do not pair today, so this is unlikely. Regardless, you have no useful information). Well this is just nonsense, base pairing is a phenomenon of higher structural levels for RNA. Single stranded RNA doesn't need base pairing so any number of sequences composed of sequences of A's and G's is possible. Or is your argument that without a complementary partner there will be no folding to functional tertiary structures like hairpins? That might be a valid argument, if it were true that pyrimidines couldn't be formed, which it isn't.
Then I suppose we will get to them when the scientists do, hey? Not really, you claimed that no chemical reactions to produce ribonucleic acids existed that didn't require enzymes. I gave you a reference to a paper full of non-enzymatic chemical routes, as well as one paper showing such a route in operation. So your claim is false, now you are switching claims, no one is going to be fooled by this into accepting that your initial claim was true. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4805 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
Yes. Apes all have a dark-hued sclera, or various shades of brown eyes. As does the one you posted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4805 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
I'm actually with you on this one Theo. Thats one human looking monkey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4805 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"As an error correcting mechanism it is very efficient, but the sheer volumes of genetic material involved mean that mutations are an inevitable result."
I'm not sure if you're still talking about Macro evolution. Since micro evolution requires a loss of genetic code over time, and Macro requires the opposite. Errors and losses of genetic code are evidence for micro evolution, which is a documented scientific fact. "Wow, you just totally changed the premise of your argument, nice goal post shift. The most commonly posited explanation for this is that life arose in the oceans, where a depth of ~30 metres would reduce the radiative effects to equivalent to those of the modern day." Okay, but now you still have no oxygen to allow for any sort of chemical reaction...unless you're saying that the reaction would take place completely underwater?? "Not really, you claimed that no chemical reactions to produce ribonucleic acids existed that didn't require enzymes." Still not clear enough yet hey? Phosphate must have been, or must now come to have been, present at reasonable concentrations. (The concentrations in the oceans would have been very low, so we must think about special situationsevaporating lagoons and such. THEN, the phosphate must be activated in some wayfor example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphateso that phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible. Now, since your chemical reaction is occuring underwater, now we have to consider other parameters, such as Ph levels, temperatures, etc. The reaction would have needed to take place outside harmful sunlight radiation. Either way, no life. As I said before. You need phosphate, that would not have been present, and you need oxygen, which may or may not have been, either way, you have no life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I'm actually with you on this one Theo. Thats one human looking monkey
That is not a monkey it is an ape of the species Homo sapiens unless you are claiming that humans, other apes, old world monkeys & new world monkeys are all monkeys, super class Anthropoidea Edited by bluescat48, : need i say it again typo There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
Yes because it's 100% impossible for a species that has more genetic diversity and more populations then other related species to have other eye colors
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Since micro evolution requires a loss of genetic code over time Microevolution does not in any sense rely on a "loss of genetic code" over time. Rather, it relies on the differential reproductive success experienced by individuals in a population as a result of their varying heritable traits. And the reason their heritable traits vary, and they're not simply all clones of each other, is because of random mutation. The individuals selected for, and the individuals selected against, all have the same amount of genetic code.
Okay, but now you still have no oxygen to allow for any sort of chemical reaction...unless you're saying that the reaction would take place completely underwater?? All chemical reactions performed by living things take place in water, which is why water is such a crucial component of life. Biochemistry is completely impossible until the components of the cell are in aqueous solution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4918 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Since micro evolution requires a loss of genetic code over time, and Macro requires the opposite. "Microevolution" doesn't require any loss of genetic material. You can have exactly the same number of chromosomes, which are just shifted around the place; you could have one gene location removed and another doubled to take its place; you can have insertions that result in more genetic information within one subspecies compared to another; you could have two subspecies that both get insertion mutations but in different places. All of those (can) lead to separation into subspecies. All of them exist in addition to and beside deletions (lowering of information content). All of them are microevolution. Macroevolution is merely accumulated microevolution over time. As to the bit after that: microevolution is evidence for microevolution. The fact that it occurs is how we know it occurs. Now that we've dealt with the "information only decreases" and "macroevolution doesn't exist" PRATTs...
Okay, but now you still have no oxygen to allow for any sort of chemical reaction...unless you're saying that the reaction would take place completely underwater?? What is water made of again? Oh, that's right: almost 90% oxygen by mass. And yes, the reactions would have initially occurred entirely submerged in water, just like a majority of all reactions in the body do now. And no, that is absolutely no barrier to the formation of complex molecules* let alone simple ones.
Phosphate must have been, or must now come to have been, present at reasonable concentrations. ... You need phosphate, that would not have been present, and you need oxygen, which may or may not have been, either way, you have no life.
Why is phosphate's presence a problem? This from one paper, found in a Google search for "volcanic phosphate":
quote:From what else I could find on the subject, this is typical of any region with volcanism; more of 'this' and 'that', a little less of 'these' and 'those'. So, volcanic soils and assumably other volcanic material contains phosphorous/phosphate in relatively large amounts. AFAIK the most popular hypothesis for where life started was deep ocean, in areas with high volcanic activity. Meaning lots of heat and lots of stuff that life needs. Which means that your statement viz. 'either way, no life' is based on erroneous information. The opposing statement, that "life could have arisen on its own" AKA abiogenesis remains very much a possibility that fits within the data available. Any support or criticism of the above analysis welcome, provided it's based on facts and not "nuh-uh!".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4831 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
Water is made of 90% oxygen so how could it be that there was no oxygen in early earth? The water at the deep vents does not have oxygen. How does this make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
barbara writes: Water is made of 90% oxygen so how could it be that there was no oxygen in early earth? Huh?
barbara writes: The water at the deep vents does not have oxygen. Huh? Where are you getting this nonsense? First, water is H2O. Two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. But don't try to breath water, it don't work well for most humans. The issue relative to the evolution of life on earth though is the availability of free oxygen in the atmosphere. What I think you may be referring to is the amount of dissolved oxygen in water. BUT...that still has nothing to do with the topic. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024