Evolution: the Facts.

[Lowpro]

So I was perusing science daily for another article and came across this one that may be appropriate.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120816141537.htm

 

[ufology]

So I was perusing science daily for another article and came across this one that may be appropriate.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120816141537.htm

Thanks Lowpro ... interesting article. But it still doesn't explain exactly how it happened. In fact the article confirms my initial point that this issue remains a scientific mystery and does not conform to standard theories of evolution. Until we get further information, one could just as easily theorize that the presence of 270 copies of DUF1220 encoded into the human genome, ( far more than other species ) suggests some sort of genetic engineering rather than it does evolution.

 

[Paulhoff]

suggests some sort of genetic engineering rather than it does evolution.

By what?????


Do you know that evolution is a process, not a plan.



Paul

 

[ufology]

By what?????

Do you know that evolution is a process, not a plan. Paul

Of course.

 

[Robrob]

Until we get further information, one could just as easily theorize that the presence of 270 copies of DUF1220 encoded into the human genome, ( far more than other species ) suggests some sort of genetic engineering rather than it does evolution.[/SIZE][/FONT]

One could also theorize it suggests some sort of Druidic influence than it does genetic engineering.

One could also theorize it suggests some sort of Bigfoot influence than it does genetic engineering.

One could also theorize it suggests some sort of Elvish influence than it does genetic engineering.

One can "theorize" a lot of things...

 

[Lowpro]

Thanks Lowpro ... interesting article. But it still doesn't explain exactly how it happened. In fact the article confirms my initial point that this issue remains a scientific mystery and does not conform to standard theories of evolution. Until we get further information, one could just as easily theorize that the presence of 270 copies of DUF1220 encoded into the human genome, ( far more than other species ) suggests some sort of genetic engineering rather than it does evolution.

Honestly you could have done that without the article, it would have just been without knowing what DUF1220 is.

But let me try walking you through how evolution works on a molecular level. The domain DUF1220 on average has about 270 copies in the human genome. Some humans probably have more, others less. And then there's the problem of how actively those domains are transcribed but that's not the issue in reproduction, how genes continue through organisms and generations.

Using the theory of evolution I could hypothesize that the domain underwent a series of replication within the genome ( like this) of human ancestors probably before the split in the populations between what evolved into chimpanzees and Homo ancestors. I say before because we see a LOT of skull variation within ancestor fossils of homonids, so I think that's a safe assumption seeing as skull size is linked to brain size.

So really ToE answers why there are a prevalence of the protein domain in humans due to replication and continuum along Homonid lineages (skull size supports the hypothesis)

I don't need a designer for this so theorizing such needs more evidence against the null hypothesis that evolution provides. Until you can provide statistical significance against it, such a theory of design is untenable.

*An addendum. While it's nice to have one protein link to the evolution of intelligence I highly doubt that it takes just the one type of protein. Transcription and translation works in feedback patterns (I say patterns because while there's a biochemical feedback this feedback also operates in a continuum along the lineage; we call this natural selection) so just assuming that it's replication alone a some constant rate wouldn't be accurate. You need to identify the biochemistry relating to the rate of translation. An example is this paper there are many similar studies however this one's free. It's imperative to consider the rate and change according to the lineage of the organism so do not assume a constant rate for proteins, especially proteins that obviously had a major shift in expression such as DUF1220.

For all your reasoning of a designer I just cannot see the necessity. Biochemistry doesn't need a designer any more than ice needs one to melt when heat can give you expected results.

EDIT: HAHAHA I was right! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16946073 I'm awesome. I expect my Ph.D any day now

 

[Sideroxylon]

Thanks Lowpro ... interesting article. But it still doesn't explain exactly how it happened. In fact the article confirms my initial point that this issue remains a scientific mystery and does not conform to standard theories of evolution. Until we get further information, one could just as easily theorize that the presence of 270 copies of DUF1220 encoded into the human genome, ( far more than other species ) suggests some sort of genetic engineering rather than it does evolution.

Mysteries are not license to insert your pet hypothesis. Evolution is a fact and we stick with that until further evidence.

Why does "the presence of 270 copies of DUF1220 encoded into the human genome" suggest genetic engineering? You need to do better than this being more than any other species.

 

[Sideroxylon]

EDIT: HAHAHA I was right! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16946073 I'm awesome. I expect my Ph.D any day now

Our JREF members who know what they are talking about on science are awesome. Appreciated.

 

[MG1962]

Mysteries are not license to insert your pet hypothesis. Evolution is a fact and we stick with that until further evidence.

Why does "the presence of 270 copies of DUF1220 encoded into the human genome" suggest genetic engineering? You need to do better than this being more than any other species.

If you have to ask this question it is clear you don't have the sort of knowledge base that would make any explanation comprehensible to you

 

[ufology]

Our JREF members who know what they are talking about on science are awesome. Appreciated.

Well at least we ( and I say "we" because I am also a member ) at least we know how to create a link to an article, the author of which seems to know what they are talking about, and in this case says, "A genome-wide survey of gene copy number variation among human and great ape lineages revealed that the most striking human lineage-specific amplification was due to an unknown gene, MGC8902 ..."

So we have the presence of this "unknown gene" which suddenly causes an unexplained burst in brain size that is not in keeping with with the normal theories of evolution. Simply saying "evolution is a fact" does not explain this anomaly, and to change the primary premise of the theory ( that evolution takes place at a glacially slow pace based on natural selection ) is not appropriate without further research.

In the evolution vs creation debates we hear time and again how it is this "glacially slow" pace over millions and millions of years based on small relatively insignificant mutations that turn out favorable for survival that are responsible for how things evolve without a creator. I'm perfectly fine with that. But what about a major exception like this? I can see something minor like maybe a minor jaw alignment, but more than doubling the brain size including major upgrades to the neocortex? It's the biological equivalent of evolving a supercomputer overnight ( in evolutionary time ). Standard evolution doesn't explain it, but genetic engineering does, so why not consider it a possibility? What science says it's not possible?

 

[Acleron]

Well at least we ( and I say "we" because I am also a member ) at least we know how to create a link to an article, the author of which seems to know what they are talking about, and in this case says, "A genome-wide survey of gene copy number variation among human and great ape lineages revealed that the most striking human lineage-specific amplification was due to an unknown gene, MGC8902 ..."

So we have the presence of this "unknown gene" which suddenly causes an unexplained burst in brain size that is not in keeping with with the normal theories of evolution. Simply saying "evolution is a fact" does not explain this anomaly, and to change the primary premise of the theory ( that evolution takes place at a glacially slow pace based on natural selection ) is not appropriate without further research.

In the evolution vs creation debates we hear time and again how it is this "glacially slow" pace over millions and millions of years based on small relatively insignificant mutations that turn out favorable for survival that are responsible for how things evolve without a creator. I'm perfectly fine with that. But what about a major exception like this? I can see something minor like maybe a minor jaw alignment, but more than doubling the brain size including major upgrades to the neocortex? It's the biological equivalent of evolving a supercomputer overnight ( in evolutionary time ). Standard evolution doesn't explain it, but genetic engineering does, so why not consider it a possibility? What science says it's not possible?

The effects of genes are constant. Some mutations may only slightly change the phenotype and lead to small or no increments in the survivability of that gene. Red hair colour is an example of that. Other single mutations can lead to devastating changes such as phenylketonuria which without intervention is fatal.

The rate of mutation is with certain caveats pretty constant, the effects are not.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Well at least we ( and I say "we" because I am also a member ) at least we know how to create a link to an article, the author of which seems to know what they are talking about, and in this case says, "A genome-wide survey of gene copy number variation among human and great ape lineages revealed that the most striking human lineage-specific amplification was due to an unknown gene, MGC8902 ..."

So we have the presence of this "unknown gene" which suddenly causes an unexplained burst in brain size that is not in keeping with with the normal theories of evolution. Simply saying "evolution is a fact" does not explain this anomaly, and to change the primary premise of the theory ( that evolution takes place at a glacially slow pace based on natural selection ) is not appropriate without further research.

In the evolution vs creation debates we hear time and again how it is this "glacially slow" pace over millions and millions of years based on small relatively insignificant mutations that turn out favorable for survival that are responsible for how things evolve without a creator. I'm perfectly fine with that. But what about a major exception like this? I can see something minor like maybe a minor jaw alignment, but more than doubling the brain size including major upgrades to the neocortex? It's the biological equivalent of evolving a supercomputer overnight ( in evolutionary time ). Standard evolution doesn't explain it, but genetic engineering does, so why not consider it a possibility? What science says it's not possible?

Unknown gene in genetics means: Gene with currently unknown function.
NOT
We don't know where it came from or what mutations occured.

Unfortunately to discover what an unknown gene actually *does* its best to mutate things that look important and see what gets screwed up in the process.
And if its a gene that has a function in brain formation that can easily lead to non-viable genotypes.
Also the best species (bar humans) to *test* this in are great apes, and experimenting on those is severely limited.

You conception that brain size suddenly and unexplicably completely jumped up is not something that the fossil record seems to show, nor is there any indication that there are insertions in the human genome that show the clear hallmark of genetic engineering.
And yes, that *would* show up and no even after all the human genomic sequencing and random other organism sequencing there is no indication at all that there is any instertion/mutation/gene duplication that is inexplicable except by genetic engineering, except for all the recently human made ones.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Well at least we ( and I say "we" because I am also a member ) at least we know how to create a link to an article, the author of which seems to know what they are talking about, and in this case says, "A genome-wide survey of gene copy number variation among human and great ape lineages revealed that the most striking human lineage-specific amplification was due to an unknown gene, MGC8902 ..."

So we have the presence of this "unknown gene" which suddenly causes an unexplained burst in brain size that is not in keeping with with the normal theories of evolution. Simply saying "evolution is a fact" does not explain this anomaly, and to change the primary premise of the theory ( that evolution takes place at a glacially slow pace based on natural selection ) is not appropriate without further research.

In the evolution vs creation debates we hear time and again how it is this "glacially slow" pace over millions and millions of years based on small relatively insignificant mutations that turn out favorable for survival that are responsible for how things evolve without a creator. I'm perfectly fine with that. But what about a major exception like this? I can see something minor like maybe a minor jaw alignment, but more than doubling the brain size including major upgrades to the neocortex? It's the biological equivalent of evolving a supercomputer overnight ( in evolutionary time ). Standard evolution doesn't explain it, but genetic engineering does, so why not consider it a possibility? What science says it's not possible?

Evidence please. You can link to the abstract of the article if you like.

 

[ufology]

Unknown gene in genetics means: Gene with currently unknown function. NOT We don't know where it came from or what mutations occured.

Since they know its function, then according to you it shouldn't be called "unknown". But it still adds up to the same question anyway. The jump in brain size and in particular the neocortex is due to billions of cells that in theory, might have been made possible by all these extra proteins ( DUF1220 ) that just suddenly ( in evolutionary time ) came into being because of the unknown gene and just happened to be configured in just the right sequence to give rise to our higher brain functions? And your skeptic's radar isn't pinging just a little bit?

You conception that brain size suddenly and unexplicably completely jumped up is not something that the fossil record seems to show ...

The largest jump is between Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. So yes the fossil record does confirm what I'm saying and it's the very question these scientists are exploring.

... nor is there any indication that there are insertions in the human genome that show the clear hallmark of genetic engineering. And yes, that *would* show up and no even after all the human genomic sequencing and random other organism sequencing there is no indication at all that there is any instertion/mutation/gene duplication that is inexplicable except by genetic engineering, except for all the recently human made ones.

That depends on what you define as a "clear hallmark". The mere prevalence of this so-called "unknown gene", and the clearly elevated "unknown proteins" that suddenly ( in evolutionary time ) theoretically caused our brain size to more than double and gave rise to our higher cognitive functions could be considered a "hallmark". After all when scientists play with genes in labs are they not adding and subtracting genetic material? It's not like it has the Monsanto logo on it. The only way to tell is by determining how anomalous a particular gene is. If it comes from another gene pool then it would be highly anomalous, but less anomalous things that produce significantly anomalous changes might be considered equally curious.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Since they know its function, then according to you it shouldn't be called "unknown". But it still adds up to the same question anyway. The jump in brain size and in particular the neocortex is due to billions of cells that in theory, might have been made possible by all these extra proteins ( DUF1220 ) that just suddenly ( in evolutionary time ) came into being because of the unknown gene and just happened to be configured in just the right sequence to give rise to our higher brain functions? And your skeptic's radar isn't pinging just a little bit?





The largest jump is between Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. So yes the fossil record does confirm what I'm saying and it's the very question these scientists are exploring.





That depends on what you define as a "clear hallmark". The mere prevalence of this so-called "unknown gene", and the clearly elevated "unknown proteins" that suddenly ( in evolutionary time ) theoretically caused our brain size to more than double and gave rise to our higher cognitive functions could be considered a "hallmark". After all when scientists play with genes in labs are they not adding and subtracting genetic material? It's not like it has the Monsanto logo on it. The only way to tell is by determining how anomalous a particular gene is. If it comes from another gene pool then it would be highly anomalous, but less anomalous things that produce significantly anomalous changes might be considered equally curious.

Given the massive amount of gaps present in the fossil record this means absolutely nothing. The transistion between the species still took tens if not hundreds of thousands of years (Dinwar will know this).
Gene duplication is a very common thing to happen during meiosis.

And knowing that a gene has something to do with brain size does not mean you know its function. At least not in genetics. Knowing a function means you know where the protein encoded by the gene is located and what proteins it interacts with. Preferably also HOW it interacts and what happens if that interaction is disturbed in some manner.

Targeted insertion of a gene needs a marker to force your inserted gene to go where you want it to go. In bacteria this is usually antibiotic resistance, in eukaryotes we tend to use aminoacid deficiencies (which need to be introduced) with a marker that alleviates this deficiency. Such a marker will show up in any sequencing like a red flag as it will be in a completely illogical spot and often genetically clearly unrelated to the organism in question to prevent unwanted genomic crossing. These markers need to be designed to be genetically VERY stable, as genomic manipulation is a very unreliable process at the best of times and higher eukaryotes are *very* hard to engineer.
Nothing even closely resembling this has been found in the human genome.
The data of the human genome project are a matter of public record.
I'd say you download all of it, re-do the open reading frame analysis and then look for insertion markers yourself.

 

[ufology]

Given the massive amount of gaps present in the fossil record this means absolutely nothing.

Wrong. The gaps are very significant. The absence of intermediary samples increasingly suggests that there aren't any.

The transistion between the species still took tens if not hundreds of thousands of years (Dinwar will know this). Gene duplication is a very common thing to happen during meiosis.

That is a very short span in evolutionary time to develop something as complex as the brain we have now. Again, we're not just talking about jaw alignment or a change in eye color. We're talking about the most sophisticated data processing unit known to exist ( as of the date of this post anyway ).

And knowing that a gene has something to do with brain size does not mean you know its function. At least not in genetics. Knowing a function means you know where the protein encoded by the gene is located and what proteins it interacts with. Preferably also HOW it interacts and what happens if that interaction is disturbed in some manner.

Targeted insertion of a gene needs a marker to force your inserted gene to go where you want it to go. In bacteria this is usually antibiotic resistance, in eukaryotes we tend to use aminoacid deficiencies (which need to be introduced) with a marker that alleviates this deficiency. Such a marker will show up in any sequencing like a red flag as it will be in a completely illogical spot and often genetically clearly unrelated to the organism in question to prevent unwanted genomic crossing. These markers need to be designed to be genetically VERY stable, as genomic manipulation is a very unreliable process at the best of times and higher eukaryotes are *very* hard to engineer. Nothing even closely resembling this has been found in the human genome.

The data of the human genome project are a matter of public record.
I'd say you download all of it, re-do the open reading frame analysis and then look for insertion markers yourself.

Your suggestion to do more reading is a good idea. But I'm not interested in knowing everything there is to know about genetics. All I need is a specific reason to invalidate the point I'm making, and I haven't seen it yet. A genetic marker is a gene or DNA sequence with a known location on a chromosome that can be used to identify individuals or species. It doesn't have to be an artificially inserted piece. Using these markers to differentiate individuals or species is done by a comparison based on a database of information. But there is no sufficient genetic database for the Homo Habilis to Neanderthals transition ( so far as I know ) from which to make a valid comparison. Therefore, I don't see how any "red flag" could be found.

Let's take a hypothetical example. If genetic engineering were done on bonobos to increase the number of the their own inherent proteins, and those bonobos went on to reproduce for 10,000 years until the change had become stable and a seemingly natural part of their makeup, that then manifested itself in a so-called "spontaneous mutation", someone could conceivably conclude that 1. A radical evolutionary leap had taken place by pure coincidence, or 2. The presence of so many proteins in exactly the right sequence in such a short span ( in evolutionary time ) to produce such a complex change does not fit standard evolutionary theory. In which case they might ask. 3. How could it happen? There are only two possibilities here, a) naturally or b) artificially. Without an actual DNA sample from immediately before and after, there wouldn't be any "clear marker". If you could point to some specific text that invalidates this ... please do so. I would be very interested in reading further details on this specific issue.

Lastly, just a reminder that I'm not disputing that evolution takes place or suggesting that God is ultimately responsible for creation. I am claiming that genetic engineering is scientifically possible and that in some unusual cases like the one we're discussing ( the sudden increase in brain capacity ), it's a fair to question to ask if a natural explanation fits better than an artificial one ( leaving out any other factors besides the two scientific possibilities ). In other words, forget what an artificial cause implies as part of the reason for the answer. Strictly speaking, does standard evolution explain it? No. So what else does ... perhaps some yet to be discovered natural process ... perhaps not. We still need more evidence to be able to answer that question with any certainty.

 

[aggle-rithm]

That is a very short span in evolutionary time to develop something as complex as the brain we have now. Again, we're not just talking about an extra tooth or a change in eye color. We're talking about the most sophisticated data processing unit known to exist ( as of the date of this post anyway ).

Speaking as someone who designs complex software systems, I can tell you that once the basic framework is laid down, it is surprisingly easy to scale up the complexity of a system very quickly. This is particularly true in a flexible, plastic system...which describes the brain perfectly.

Remember, it isn't just genetics that makes the brain a "sophisticated data processing unit", it is also a rich environment that programs it over the period of years and decades.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Wrong. The gaps are very significant. The absence of intermediary samples increasingly suggests that there aren't any.





That is a very short span in evolutionary time to develop something as complex as the brain we have now. Again, we're not just talking about jaw alignment or a change in eye color. We're talking about the most sophisticated data processing unit known to exist ( as of the date of this post anyway ).





Your suggestion to do more reading is a good idea. But I'm not interested in knowing everything there is to know about genetics. All I need is a specific reason to invalidate the point I'm making, and I haven't seen it yet. A genetic marker is a gene or DNA sequence with a known location on a chromosome that can be used to identify individuals or species. It doesn't have to be an artificially inserted piece. Using these markers to differentiate individuals or species is done by a comparison based on a database of information. But there is no sufficient genetic database for the Homo Habilis to Neanderthals transition ( so far as I know ) from which to make a valid comparison. Therefore, I don't see how any "red flag" could be found.

Let's take a hypothetical example. If genetic engineering were done on bonobos to increase the number of the their own inherent proteins, and those bonobos went on to reproduce for 10,000 years until the change had become stable and a seemingly natural part of their makeup, that then manifested itself in a so-called "spontaneous mutation", someone could conceivably conclude that 1. A radical evolutionary leap had taken place by pure coincidence, or 2. The presence of so many proteins in exactly the right sequence in such a short span ( in evolutionary time ) to produce such a complex change does not fit standard evolutionary theory. In which case they might ask. 3. How could it happen? There are only two possibilities here, a) naturally or b) artificially. Without an actual DNA sample from immediately before and after, there wouldn't be any "clear marker". If you could point to some specific text that invalidates this ... please do so. I would be very interested in reading further details on this specific issue.

Lastly, just a reminder that I'm not disputing that evolution takes place or suggesting that God is ultimately responsible for creation. I am claiming that genetic engineering is scientifically possible and that in some unusual cases like the one we're discussing ( the sudden increase in brain capacity ), it's a fair to question to ask if a natural explanation fits better than an artificial one ( leaving out any other factors besides the two scientific possibilities ). In other words, forget what an artificial cause implies as part of the reason for the answer. Strictly speaking, does standard evolution explain it? No. So what else does ... perhaps some yet to be discovered natural process ... perhaps not. We still need more evidence to be able to answer that question with any certainty.

See, this is where you would need to actually STUDY the subjects you complain about.
1: a gap in the fossil record is commonplace, its not a harddisk with data saved for out convenience. Its animals that happened to die in a way that prevented normal breakdown. But the more we find, the more it seems to just go gradual.

2: To insert a gene into ANY genome in a coherent fashion you need to perform a series of tricks that *need* a marker.
That marker needs to be genetically stable and *do* something to keep your insertions into the genome.
That marker needs to be incompatible with the rest of the genome, or its just going to recombine with something else and mess up your entire project.
That would not be undetecable now, but rather obvious still.
The only known way to avoid this is engineer the entire genome from scratch, which would be even more obvious, unless you engineer it in such a way as to be indistuingishable from everything else. In which case occam's razor would suggest that if its looks like natural evolution, then it is natural evolution.

Unless people who have actually *studied* this gene and its genomic surroundings say its inserted via ancient genetic engineering, why assume it is?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Little green men of the gaps. Instead of the Christian God going in to gaps in understandings of the world around us, and frequently these gaps are only gaps in the understanding of the speaker, we get aliens did it.

 

[ufology]

Speaking as someone who designs complex software systems, I can tell you that once the basic framework is laid down, it is surprisingly easy to scale up the complexity of a system very quickly. This is particularly true in a flexible, plastic system...which describes the brain perfectly.

Remember, it isn't just genetics that makes the brain a "sophisticated data processing unit", it is also a rich environment that programs it over the period of years and decades.

That's a pretty good point to some extent, especially because some people say that Neanderthals, because of their large brain, may have been equally intelligent as we are, but just lacked the knowledge. The weakness however is that the brain itself isn't software. Using the computer analogy, it's the CPU, GPU, soundcard, memory and all the other hardware that would enable sensory input to be stored and analyzed. It's true that the 486 chip evolved rapidly into the Pentium, Core 2 and I7, but Moore's law has nothing to do with natural selection, it's computer engineering. So it makes sense that it would evolve so fast. But it doesn't make sense for the brain to have done so, and despite all the implied expertise of the posters here to the contrary, that is exactly the reason that scientists are at this very moment studying the problem. They don't know how to explain it.