The origin of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Black_Rose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
As created I have no way of knowing. But with their preternatural gifts they might not need skin pigmentation.
Click to expand...
If they gave birth to the human race, most of whom are heavily melanized and very few of whom are albinos, they would certainly have needed skin pigmentation. Unless of course you’re willing to acknowledge that the genes for melanin were the result of a mutation that added information to the human genome.

What height and weight do you imagine Adam was? What colour were Eve’s eyes?
 
Moonstruck888 said:
If they gave birth to the human race, most of whom are heavily melanized and very few of whom are albinos, they would certainly have needed skin pigmentation. Unless of course you’re willing to acknowledge that the genes for melanin were the result of a mutation that added information to the human genome.

What height and weight do you imagine Adam was? What colour were Eve’s eyes?
Click to expand...
I would admit that they possessed the instructions for melanonization which their descendants capitalized on.

You are not getting it - the “core” is front loaded and capable of rapid response adaptation.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Evidence?

Where did you manage to obtain a sample of Adam and Eve’s DNA?
Click to expand...
We can start here:

The theory of facilitated variation

Abstract This theory concerns the means by which animals generate phenotypic variation from genetic change. Most anatomical and physiological traits that have evolved since the Cambrian are, we propose, the result of regulatory changes in the usage of various members of a large set of conserved core components that function in development and physiology. Genetic change of the DNA sequences for regulatory elements of DNA, RNAs, and proteins leads to heritable regulatory change, which specifies new combinations of core components, operating in new amounts and states at new times and places in the animal. These new configurations of components comprise new traits. The number and kinds of regulatory changes needed for viable phenotypic variation are determined by the properties of the developmental and physiological processes in which core components serve, in particular by the processes’ modularity, robustness, adaptability, capacity to engage in weak regulatory linkage, and exploratory behavior. These properties reduce the number of regulatory changes needed to generate viable selectable phenotypic variation, increase the variety of regulatory targets, reduce the lethality of genetic change, and increase the amount of genetic variation retained by a population. By such reductions and increases, the conserved core processes facilitate the generation of phenotypic variation, which selection thereafter converts to evolutionary and genetic change in the population. Thus, we call it a theory of facilitated phenotypic variation.
 
buffalo said:
We can start here:
Click to expand...
You are seriously using a paragarph that says most phenotypical variation has evolved since the Cambrian period to justify statements you’ve made about Adam and Eve and a young Earth?
 
Moonstruck888 said:
You are seriously using a paragarph that says most phenotypical variation has evolved since the Cambrian period to justify statements you’ve made about Adam and Eve and a young Earth?
Click to expand...
You asked about the “core” and regulatory processes and wanted a source.
 
buffalo said:
You asked about the “core” and regulatory processes and wanted a source.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in that paragraph that states anything about the immortal and immutable genotypes you asserted were carried by Adam and Eve.
 
buffalo said:
Did you read the whole paper?
Click to expand...
Yes, I skimmed through the whole paper and read the relevant details in some depth. You defined a core of genetic material as being immortal, your word. There is nothing in this article to support that.

Your article also emphatically doesn’t support the idea that the human organisms could be descended from two individuals.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Yes, I skimmed through the whole paper and read the relevant details in some depth. You defined a core of genetic material as being immortal, your word. There is nothing in this article to support that.

Your article also emphatically doesn’t support the idea that the human organisms could be descended from two individuals.
Click to expand...
OK, next step - Sean Carrol - no friend of ID.

The Making of the Fittest: A Conversation with Evolutionary Biologist Sean Carroll

In this episode, evolutionary biologist Sean Carroll talks about his new book, “The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution.” Even without fossils or comparative anatomy, vast amounts of evidence for evolution and its mechanisms exist in the genomes of the organisms alive today. Carroll discusses immortal genes, fossil genes and repetition in evolution, as well as environmental issues in light of evolutionary understanding.

…
Steve: There are three major themes in the book. Why don’t we talk about each one of those? The three major themes being: some genes are immortal, they are so important they are unchanged for hundreds of millions of years; some genes, however, stop getting used and those begin to decay and you have actual fossils of those genes still lying around in various organisms’ genomes; and the third being that evolution in fact does repeat itself from time to time. So, let’s talk about it one by one. Some genes are immortal.
Carroll: Right! So, if we look in any living organism– so this could be bacteria, this could be the archaea that live in the hot springs of Yellowstone, plants, fungi, animals – there is a set of genes, maybe on the order of just a few hundred, that are found in every domain of life. And these genes encode functions pretty much devoted to the decoding of genetic material. that [These] must be very ancient functions in terms of cellular life, and what I mean by those genes being immortal is that over really 3 billion years, while others genes have been changing to the point where really their record gets erased over that period of time, these genes have been preserved by natural selection so faithfully that we can see that shared code among all these organisms. So, the reason why they are being preserved is, they are so essential for function that really the organism can’t move forward without them. They have to be protected, essentially, from major change, but most other genes do not have this [the] role for this. This set of immortal genes is a tremendous way we can trace the history of life.
 
buffalo said:
OK, next step - Sean Carrol - no friend of ID.
Click to expand...
I don’t really get why you’d think that I, who accept Evolution as a fact, I who accept that all life evolved from a single source, should be surprised that there are genes found in all three domains?

How does this support a 6000 year old human race that originated from two progenitors who, according to Christianity, stand outside taxonomy?
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I don’t really get why you’d think that I, who accept Evolution as a fact, I who accept that all life evolved from a single source, should be surprised that there are genes found in all three domains?

How does this support a 6000 year old human race that originated from two progenitors who, according to Christianity, stand outside taxonomy?
Click to expand...
To recap - you asked about the “core” and immortal genes. When reading these two citations (and others I have supplied) it now should be clear that my claim is substantiated.

Moving on - Adam and Eve - As Catholics we believe them to be historical and that they possessed preternatural gifts, (we get this from Revelation) including bodily immortality. We understand Adam and Eve to be prototypical humans. It stands to reason that their “genes” did not yet undergo corruption.
 
buffalo said:
To recap - you asked about the “core” and immortal genes. When reading these two citations (and others I have supplied) it now should be clear that my claim is substantiated.
Click to expand...
Not really. For one thing, the so called immortal genes have changed since the Cambrian. For another thing, to be immortal, they would need to be supernatural. There is nothing in your articles to suggest that is the case.
Moving on - Adam and Eve - As Catholics we believe them to be historical and that they possessed preternatural gifts, (we get this from Revelation) including bodily immortality. We understand Adam and Eve to be prototypical humans. It stands to reason that their “genes” did not yet undergo corruption.
Click to expand...
It does not stand to reason that Adam and Eve were preternatural, it stands to reason that there never were an Adam and Eve. The human race evolved from a pool of far more than two individuals, many thousands in fact.

As a matter of fact, the first humanoid beings were ugly squat hunchbacks, not at all your glittering preternatural archetypes.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Not really. For one thing, the so called immortal genes have changed since the Cambrian. For another thing, to be immortal, they would need to be supernatural. There is nothing in your articles to suggest that is the case.

It does not stand to reason that Adam and Eve were preternatural, it stands to reason that there never were an Adam and Eve. The human race evolved from a pool of far more than two individuals, many thousands in fact.

As a matter of fact, the first humanoid beings were ugly squat hunchbacks, not at all your glittering preternatural archetypes.
Click to expand...
Are we talking the same language - I am calling them immortal because the author refers to them that way. Did you even read it? That is why “immortal” with the quotes.

But yes to be truly immortal they would have to be supernaturally created. (precisely what IDvolution is getting at)

I am sure granny will have something to say about the ugly squat hunchbacks comment. 🙂
 
buffalo said:
Are we talking the same language - I am calling them immortal because the author refers to them that way. Did you even read it? That is why “immortal” with the quotes.
Click to expand...
Yes. His use of the word immortal was inappropriate. Persistant, yes. Immortal, no.
But yes to be truly immortal they would have to be supernaturally created.
Click to expand...
That is the first thing you’ve said on this subject that I actually agree with.
 
buffalo said:
Are we talking the same language - I am calling them immortal because the author refers to them that way. Did you even read it? That is why “immortal” with the quotes.

But yes to be truly immortal they would have to be supernaturally created. (precisely what IDvolution is getting at)

I am sure granny will have something to say about the ugly squat hunchbacks comment. 🙂
Click to expand...
I sure did. I’m trying to fill in my family tree…seriously. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top