₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:
Create a new thread for this, I have discussed the possibilities countless times on this board.

Let's discuss every creation theory.

God theory
Ancient astronauts theory
Evolution
Migration theory..

I'm very much in need of a sound discussion if you all are game..

Vaxx, Nwabekeyi, badaatum.

game

nwabekeyi:
you are having issues trying to differentitate normal mutation from those that as significant to evolution.

Viral insertion doesn't cause evolution, it's a basic mechanism for viral infections, any viral infection has to do with insertion of a gene that start replicating in a cell to cause a disease like HIV AID etc, it doesn't cause evolution sir.

Gene duplicated doesn't require any extre insertion, the mutation caused during gene duplication is usually as a result of proofreading error during gene replication, no new DNA strand is added.

If I may ask, what's your discipline?

what is the difference between gene mutations and chromosomal mutations?..... this should solve the pussle

about m discipline... i did biology up to university level ....

nwabekeyi:
yes insertion, deletion and duplication are all rearrangements.

This is how it works, we have two forms of genes, the introns(non-expressed genes) and exons (the expressive gene), only the exons can be translated into proteins. Some times, exons added by exonization process ( I.e. converting introns to exons).
And sometimes, exons are converted to introns or an already existing exon will be rearranged.

So what vaxx could have said was the addition addition, rearrangement or removal of exons in a DNA and not addition of a new set to genes to the DNA.

After checking on Wikipedia,it explain better budaatum and validate my assertion.. New genes surely evolve through an accumulation of single mutations, the number of mutations needed to construct the promoters is high enough that it is a rare event, and takes place over generations. Also since these are mutations they are changing the code not making it longer.

Viruses- Viruses with transposon activity-- one of the few mechanisms of mobile genetic elements sinsert their DNA into chromosomes. This can happen either at random places, or at defined "landing pad" sequences. This surely increases to the overall length of the chromosome, but is not always associated with a translated gene. Much of the "junk DNA" not encoding genes-- highly debatable if it is in fact junk-- is made up of these viral DNA elements.

Gene Duplication- A gene can be duplicated, then through mutations it gains new functions. Lots of ion channels and receptors come from the same big families, i.e. they have been duplicated.Very often the duplication leaves two proteins that have overlapping function, which has the advantage that if one gets a mutation, the other still works. It inserts redundancy into a biological system.
Gene addition by humans:Humans use viral machinery to insert genes into chromosomes. Clinically there are safety considerations in infecting cells with viruses, there have been some successful and some unsuccessful attempts. This technique is widely used in laboratories on bacteria, yeast, mice, and even larger animals to insert functioning genes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_genetic_elements)--

Butterflyleo:
Well you and I know that I am always up for a little mental stimulation.

However I wanted to cut to the chase real quick by asking for his alleged "updated ideas" so as to save us the long ride.

Yes he is receiving quite some schooling. Hope he learns though.

I chose not to be too involved with the thread as you noticed otherwise my usual aggressive drilling would have been evident all over the place

i just like the way the thread keep off those who find solace and pleasure in religious bashing. good thread i must say

nwabekeyi:
[b]I sincerely do not know [/b]as that's difficult to ascertain but it's so sure that humans like every other organisms will evolve by adapting to changing environmental conditions or go into extinction like some other organisms have done.

i like Ur honest, but i assume Most likely? we may end into Dumber humans. why? There is compelling evidence our brains have grown smaller in the last 10,000 years, and despite attempts to paint this news in optimism, the most sensible explanation is that since the rise of agriculture and division of labor, intelligence simply no longer has the individual survival value it had for our more distant ancestors.


if we do not intervene by taking control of our genetic destiny (a most dangerous and unsettling path) or destroy ourselves in one way or another, we can expect that auto-domestication to continue until we are barely able to maintain the technology handed down by our enlightenment ancestors. Then, eventually, life will throw us a curve ball we can’t handle, and like any dumb brute, we’ll go extinct.

That will be an ignoble end for the only species ever to arise with the capacity to envision a better one, and it’s a theme often explored in my writing.

in all honest, i assume that the early men who propound creationist idea are smarter than us, while our generation will likely be smarter than the next generation

Butterflyleo:
More like you have no inkling about what is being said so find it intriguing.

I get you

This is not a thread open to mock religious idea but to educate each other while creationist and evolutionist may both be right. which made me stick to the thread. ''No room to received pleasure while bashing religion... their many army on ground''.. although the op find it as a challenge to decipher it in the beginning. but now he is gradually relaxing. The op wanted to educate creationist but he end up being educated. do u see the benefit of this thread to the op himself and to all those who may think creationist idea suck.

nwabekeyi:
why do you think humans were created by a higher being? Because you really contradict yourself if you think evolution is still occurring and you also think humans won't also evolve in a constantly changing environment, how possible is that?

Can you also provide proof to this?

what kind of species will human likely evolve to in the future?

budaatum:
I did. Came up with three sorts - insertion, deletion and duplication. Are there others you might point me to please?

insertions likely stands for addition i assume.

nwabekeyi:
I have corrected that post before now, I meant to type Homo rhodesiensis, was in rush to respond to the guy

u always rush to response

SoundLock:
H. ergaster and the H. heidelbergensis are still very much like the homo-erectus and other pre humans species than they are like humans. Humans are still very much different.

i agree with u, but there is no consensus agreement from the angle of the anthropologist on this subject. but more likely Homo sapiens and Homo erectus has a common ancestor that we both evolved from.At least that is the current accepted idea. It might of course change if we ever get more information.

nwabekeyi:
I don't need primary school knowledge to know evolution, this same primary school knowledge told us that sunrises in the east and sets in the west.

I still stand my ground that homo sapein didn't evolve directly from homo erectus, go back and read well and stop telling me a primary school rhyme.

Homo sapiens never evolved directly from homo erectus

Not all anthropologist agree with u. becareful of ur assertiveness?

budaatum:
Provide links to study please.

do not be lazy buda.....goggle gene mutation and read up

SoundLock:
Homo-erectus. They are nothing like humans. They are stronger and much bigger. Their bones are denser and thicker. They are very much like the primates that preceded them than they are like humans. All other primates have the same facial morphology, regardless of the evolutionary time line between them. They all had large eye sockets that enabled nocturnal vision, prominent brow ridges, a neck that couldn't move like ours can, large nasal cavities, small prefrontal cortexes hence flat foreheads and loads of other features. Humans are very different.

interesting,there are differences between anthropologists interpretation on how they interpret the evidence. Those anthropologists who think that H. homo eectus is a separate, distinct species would say that heidelbergensis is the direct ancestor of both H. sapiens and H. neanderthal (and possibly H. denisovan, too). The ancestor of H. heidelbergensis is H. ergaster/erectus found in (Africa).

Those anthropologists who look at the differences between the fossils of H. heidelbergensis do not view it as a separate species, but rather as a conglomeration of transitional individuals. The fossils in Africa link H. ergaster to H. sapiens. The H. heidelbergensis fossils in Europe are transitional between H. ergaster and H. neanderthal.

In either case, H. sapiens evolved from H. ergaster/H. erectus (Africa). The difference is whether there is an intermediate species — H. heidelbergensis — in the family tree. So H. ergaster would be our “father” or “grandfather” species.

Most anthropologists now view H. erectus in Java as a different species than H. ergaster. The evidence indicates that when members of H. ergaster migrated from Africa that one population in Northern China evolved to H. pekinsiensis (Peking Man) and another population in SE Asia evolved to H. erectus (Java Man) that was discoved in the island of java

http://www.efossils.org/species/homo-ergaster....

SoundLock:
I understand evolution and I agree that it occurs. I'm content with most of the scientific literature surrounding animal evolution up to homo-erectus. It's the literature that describes the evolution of man that I don't agree with. it's all just stupid conjecturing in my opinion. I think the evidence in respect to human evolution suggests that the evolution from homo erectus to homosapiens was either accelerated by forces we don't understand, or humans were created using the DNA of primates. But to claim that humans somehow evolved DIRECTLY from a primate that we hardly share any similarity with, is just preposterous.

which primate in particular?

AgentOfAllah:
I agree with the general definition in the link you provided. I am just not sure we understand addition of information in the same way. Mutation simply means alteration of something. Alteration can occur through a combination of several pathways, including addition, subtraction and rearrangement. I acknowledge that addition results in mutation, but in so far as the definition does not preclude that latter two pathways, I don't see where the problem is with Nwa's statement.

This is my claim in which NWA is challenging .

SoundLock:
The earliest homo sapiens fossils ever found are dated around 300,000 - 200,000 years. Homo-erectus in their characteristic form were around then, even well into 160,000 years ago, so how then did humans evolve all these features from them, when no transitory species exist? It's more like some Homo erectus species transformed into homo sapiens overnight, while the rest just remained the same.

Remember the features we are referring to: Total change of bone size and density; protrusion of the forehead; depression of defined brow ridges; complete change of the throat configuration; the evolution of speech; development of larger pre-frontal cortex; the disappearance of thick hair on the body; the evolution of sweating; the transformation of the walking pattern evidenced by change in feet shape; transformation of eye sockets; loss of nocturnal vision and the evolution of consciousness amongst more - All these features are unprecedented in the evolution of primates and they all occurred at the same time during the so-called evolution of man. Is this how evolution works?

Not my question but i find this interesting. i get Ur point. but not so in total as u mean . Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. try and read from here and how it was observed, but i admit not in all. https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one is yet to be observed either , such as a frog changing into a cow. but this is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be a very strong evidence against evolution.

AgentOfAllah:
I am ignorant on the subject of evolution, so I may not be able to do this subject any kind of justice. However, since you've asked for my input, I am inclined to support Nwabekiyi's argument. From my own readings and understanding, I am not convinced that information must be added for mutation to occur.

i have provide an article to back it up . i just do not make a claim. i study it too. and likewise as u said. i am also a student trying to learn. this article give an insight.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation

AgentOfAllah:
Hi Vaxx the diviner. It has been a while. Got super busy with work. How spirit? By the way, have you read 'Children of Blood and Bones'? If not, do. If yes, I wonder what your take is on the portrayal of Yoruba divinity in the book. But let's not derail this thread. We can discuss it some other place.

That is a big qualification. i am still a student o. ''children of blood and bones''..... whaoo, i am going for it bro and i will let u know after reading...... Do not over work yourself o

Agentofallah , i saw u viewing this thread can u share your thought..... it been a while bro

nwabekeyi:
because I didn't agree that a new set of codons or genes must be added for mutation to occur?

that's not true sir, you have a CUG codon in a gene, if mutation rearranges it to GUC, you will get another protein with different characteristics.

Go read deeply sir

Go thru this, it give an insight ''Acquired (or somatic) mutations occur at some time during a person’s life and are present only in certain cells, not in every cell in the body. These changes can be caused by environmental factors such as ultraviolet radiation from the sun, or can occur if an error is made as DNA copies itself during cell division. Acquired mutations in somatic cells (cells other than sperm and egg cells) cannot be passed to the next generation.

Genetic changes that are described as de novo (new) mutations can be either hereditary or somatic. In some cases, the mutation occurs in a person’s egg or sperm cell but is not present in any of the person’s other cells. In other cases, the mutation occurs in the fertilized egg shortly after the egg and sperm cells unite. (It is often impossible to tell exactly when a de novo mutation happened.) As the fertilized egg divides, each resulting cell in the growing embryo will have the mutation. De novo mutations may explain genetic disorders in which an affected child has a mutation in every cell in the body but the parents do not, and there is no family history of the disorder''. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation

Have you seen that u need ur biology textbook more than me. Accept to take correction pls.

nwabekeyi:
I strongly disagree, information must not be added for an individual to produce traits that where not there before, simply rearrangement of the existing genetic code can give different traits, there mustn't be any addition.

For example, AUG codon will give Methionine amino acid, if you rearrange it to GUA, it will translate valine amino acid.

You don't necessarily need any addition

Then u are not an evolutionist

nwabekeyi:
vaxx, evolution is not the addition to genome,it can occur without any addition. I really wish to break this down to you but you are responding like you don't want me or I don't really know what I'm saying.

I get all your points but you don't really understand the intricacies of gene mutation in relationship to evolution.

For example, the first malaria parasite doesn't need to add anything to its genome to be able to resist malaria drugs, all it needs to do is either to slowly modify the genes responsible for the synthesis of some proteins by rearranging some of the nuclear bases then transfer those mutated genes to it's offspring afterwards. Those parasites who were unable to modify these genes will not survive, they will die.

The purpose of this illustration is to tell you that evolution is not dependent on genetic addition, it comes as a result of slight arrangement of a certain gene that could be as a result adapting to an environment or error during genetic replication or repair. To a malaria parasite, it has to adapt to the change in the chemical component of its environment as a result of the addition of a drug hence modifies some certain genes because it senses it as a danger.

Of course addition occurs, but that's mostly in prokaryotes in form of plasmids.

Evolutionary theory is basically the survival of the fittest, right? Advantageous changes that add up over time. I dont need to explain all this to u. if u must know, evolution itself depends on mutations in the genetic makeup of individuals to produce these changes. We both agree that genetic mutations exist right. And if u must know Creationists also believe in the idea of “microevolution” - genetic mutations lead to changes over time. So what is the disconnect between them?

i illustrated that evolution relies on mutations that cause additions to a genome. Information must be added to the genetic makeup of an individual to produce traits that did not exist in that individual's species before them. i further sight example, that the first ocean dweller to have eyes (the earliest version of what would later become eyes) would have had that new trait because of additional information in their genome. Over time, it is these additions that add up to get us to the 23 chromosomes we have now. how much can i explain myself?.

pls do well to read my post this time. in sincerity. i am leaning from you.

OLAADEGBU:
Let's hope you will not break loose and run when you become stuck.

Let's see how biblical knowledge is verified by mathematics.

John Heffner, a mathematics professor, puts The theory of evolution to the test, using the human population formula based on the claim that an average birth rate of 2.5 children per family yields and exponential population growth rate.

Watch him put both the Creation and Evolution Models to the test and see how each would fare under the unbiased scrutiny of Mathematics. Which one is correct, Biblical Creation or Evolution?

The Evolution Model

About 15 billion years ago the universe exploded into existence.
About 4.6 billion years ago the earth evolved
About 3.5 billion years ago life evolved
About 0.5-1.0 billion years ago humans evolved from ape-like creatures

(By time, chance and natural processes).

Creation Model

God created the universe and everything in it in 6 (24hr) days, 6,000 years ago
Sin was the cause of death
God destroyed the world by a worldwide flood
Man was created in the image of God

John Heffner put these two theories to test by using the formula; Growth rate = birth rate - death rate.

According to biblical knowledge;

Noah's flood happened about 4,500 years ago, and with 4 couples at the rate of 2.5 children per family will result in 6.5 billion people in the world. (6.5 x 10⁹)

Creation hits the bulls eye

According to the Theory of Evolution

"The evolutionary journey to modern humans ends with the appearance about 500,000 years ago of Homo Sapiens" Biology, Raven and Johnson p.525

That means about 500,000 years of man, at the rate of 2.5 children per family will produce 2.45 x 10⁹⁹⁰ people. This is more than the number of electrons in the universe!!!, which is in the 10¹³⁰

QED

what a mumbo jumbo. At what rate or growth where the first creature giving birth?. you can not dig up or take out fallacious claim from your butt and present it as fact. if we are going to deal with the subject mathematically. we need to work with some parameter like the growth rate and the number of children averagely assign to each first couples for billions of years science claim life started on earth, then after that, we can now test our answer using the same model assuming such a scenario really want to occur again. that is evidence based test.

nwabekeyi:
lol, relax, I know why I'm asking these questions, you don't seem to understand yourself.

For example, I'm the first plasmodium falciparum to start resisting chloroquine, so where did I get the gene for resistant from? Since you said it has to be added from somewhere miraculous.

go back read my quote but this time do not rush to provide an answer or response.

nwabekeyi:
so how will a gene or codon be added the DNA of a sex cell? Where will they get the additional gene from, how will the tranduce it into their nucleus?

Meanwhile, somatic cells are evey other cells that are not sex cells, so I meant cells on your body

see what an evolutionist is asking. agentofallah i missed that dude, an atheist yet intelligent. Genes are passed from cell to cell when cells divide in growth, and also passed from generation to generation when organisms reproduce - whether this is by sexual or asexual reproduction.

Genes are made of a chemical called DNA which is found in the nucleus of almost every cell. In higher organisms it is found in roughly cylindrical structures called chromosomes. are you sure you are an evolutionist?

nwabekeyi:
Vaxx, also tell me how a typical plasmodium falciparium will start an evolutionary path that will lead to drug resistant, like say chloroquine?

Does it need to add to its genome?

Where will it get the gene for resistance from?

lol, what an examinable question. According to WHO, antimalarial drug resistance has been defined as the “ability of a parasite strain to survive and/or multiply despite the administration and absorption of a drug given in doses equal to or higher than those usually recommended but within tolerance of the subject”.

Resistance, in general, appears to occur through spontaneous mutations that results into reduced sensitivity to a given drug or class of drugs. For some drugs, only a single point mutation is required to confer resistance, while for other drugs, multiple mutations appear to be required. Provided the mutations are not deleterious to the survival or reproduction of the parasite, drug pressure will remove susceptible parasites while resistant parasites survive.

Chloroquine resistance

As the malaria parasite digests haemoglobin, large amounts of a toxic by-product are formed. The parasite polymerizes this by-product in its food vacuole, producing non-toxic haemozoin (malaria pigment). It is believed that resistance of P. falciparum to chloroquine is related to an increased capacity for the parasite to expel chloroquine at a rate that does not allow chloroquine to reach levels required for inhibition of haem polymerization. This chloroquine efflux occurs at a rate of 40 to 50 times faster among resistant parasites than sensitive ones. Further evidence supporting this mechanism is provided by the fact that chloroquine resistance can be reversed by drugs which interfere with this efflux system. It is unclear whether parasite resistance to other quinoline antimalarials (amodiaquine, mefloquine, halofantrine, and quinine) occurs via similar mechanisms.


http://www.who.int/malaria/areas/drug_resistance/overview/en/

nwabekeyi:
if your somatic cells mutate, will it affect your offspring?

well, it depends. If your modified genes are just somewhere in your body (e.g. bone marrow or muscle) and not your gametes, then no, at least not via normal reproduction, as your modified genes aren’t there to be passed on.

seun this erro 5502 is getting too much

nwabekeyi:
I think we should differentiate mutation from evolution here.

Mutation is a key player in evolution but not all form if mutation are significant in evolution. For example, you delete genetic information from a somatic cell, it will not affect evolution, the mutation significant to evolution is that which occur during replication of DNA found in sex cells, those that can be transmitted to offspring for multicellular organisms like humans.

I really do not know about the loss of genetic information you are talking about but I have never heard of evolution as a result of addition of a deletion of certain gene, it's usually a slight modification genes of the DNA that can influence chemical and physical characteristics.

you need then to further study your biology textbook? as i said. there are evidence of mutations that cause the deletion, duplication or change of alleles, but never an addition. (For example, if the gene reads AATC, we have seen it change to ATC or AATCAATC or ATTC, but never AATCC.) Evolutionary theory depends on addition mutations and while they may exist in theory, they have never been observed.

you can not talk about evolution without mutation, it is like talking about a car without its particular brand.

nwabekeyi:
lol, in mutation, information is not lost but changed, please get this part correctly. A change in any of the nuclear bases leads to change and not lost of information, so I won't agree to the loss of information part of your post.

And again, it has been in ell documented that genes can be added to genome of bacteria via plasmids, this is the basis of vaccination sir. So I won't also agree to that part of your post as it's inaccurate.

See evolution as a change in genetic code and not loss of information, I think this will help you understand the topic better.

Try to study gene replication and translation into proteins, you will have a better undestanding of what I'm saying.


Like I said, evolution is a detailed creationist idea and as long as evolution is still in progress, creation has not been completed

Now u help me redefined the question better. in meaningful evolution, has not loss of genetic information ever been observed? i am waiting

And in addition we have seen mutations that cause the deletion, duplication or change of alleles, but never an addition. (For example, if the gene reads AATC, we have seen it change to ATC or AATCAATC or ATTC, but never AATCC.) Evolutionary theory depends on addition mutations and while they may exist in theory, they have never been observed.

ScienceWatch:
As usual, I commend your compassion and highly developed open mindedness in complex spiritual matters such as this VAXX.

But allow me to respectfully make a brief comment here.

That guy revealed that he is on a spiritual search and it seems that he wants to go forward.
Example: Forward is from no house to owning a house. Forward is from no job to having a job. Forward is no understanding of God to joining a spiritual institution/religion to learn, etc.

We can't go forward spiritually by consulting Atheists, that is a huge step backwards as is subtly explained in the incredible OP. BUTTERFLYLEO did a magnificent job of dismantling the very foundations of Atheism.


SALUTE !!

With all due respect atheism seems irrational. my opinion though. though they claim it is compatible with naturalism but i fear it offer no natural value. i will love to hear from atheist if been atheist comes with any natural value. i mean the ''objective verified evidence of the value'' in seun voice. At least we have all seen the charitable works of religion,schools,hospital etc even if it has come with is own flaws.

nwabekeyi:
I'm also of the school of thought that creation and evolution are the same thing but the slight difference is that evolution explains creation in proper details in regards to timeframe and accounting for every form of organism and element. Though evolution may not have the answer to all the questions because it's still a mission in progress, newer technologies will answer more questions.

Now I also believe that, the process of creation is what we call evolution and this process is still in progress. Hope this is not confusing? If it is, I can explain myself better

there seems to be some overlapping here. i will like you to beak it down.

Now, let me tell you what make creationist idea seems intelligent. it is a fact that there are no incidences in recorded genetics history of a genetic mutation resulting in adding information to a genome. the only exist in theory, the have been observed. let me explain myself Creationists believe that we were created with a genome. Yes, that genome has changed over time due to mutation, but those changes come from deletions or allele changes in the genome, not additions. Information is lost, not gained. You grab? Evolution itself relies on mutations that cause additions to a genome. Information must be added to the genetic makeup of an individual to produce traits that did not exist in that individual's species before them. For example, the first ocean dweller to have eyes (well, the earliest version of what would later become eyes) would have had that new trait because of additional information in their genome. Over time, these additions add up to get us to the 23 chromosomes we have now. if you can explain this i will love to hear. why it yet to be observed.

vaxx:
OP.... I am open to the both school of thought, in other word, i am open to rationalization and evidence base fact.

My questions is this?

What if evolution and creationist are both right? do you get me..none of the variation of evolution explain the origin of matter. It explain the complexity but not the material involve. it also explain how the complexity arises from inorganic matte but it fails to explain how inorganic matter got there in the fist place.

you could see the origin is separated from the complexity, which means evolution did not state how matter came into being .

so what if creationism idea of including Intelligent design attribute to a varying degree of the complexity of life to evolution, why the rest to the creator. the creationist role deals with origination of the matter ( which also include causing the big bang, set universal constants etc.) then it
does not need to overlap with the observation of evolution. So what does that mean if that is the case?

nwabekeyi