Human DNA holds far more capacity to adapt then can be expressed in any given individual. This DNA is like a large toolkit, where tools can lay dormant until needed.
For example, in the battle against Aids, scientists have acquired what looks like a potent new weapon. HIV, the virus that causes Aids, doesn’t infect everybody. Some people are simply born immune. It’s all down to their particular genetic make-up and researchers are beginning to understand where that genetic protection comes from. Stephen O’Brien from the US National Cancer Institute has discovered that a mutant form of one particular gene, called CCR5, confers protection against HIV. That same gene variant may well have arisen in Europe, as a direct response to the Black Death. Genetic distribution The idea comes from a careful analysis of where in the world this particular gene variant shows up. According to the researchers the mutation is absent in Africa and throughout East Asian populations and evident in varying amounts across Europe. O’Brien explains: ‘It was present as high as 15% in Scandinavia; it was less in Europe, about 10% in France, Germany and England. Further south it was 5% and in Saudi Arabia and Sub-Saharan Africa it was 0%.’ Believing that this ‘genetic drift’ was probably not random, the scientists looked to their history books to find out when this mutation was last prevalent in human history and what conditions may have favoured it. The Black Death Using the tools of molecular population genetics to identify exactly when the allele was last in force, the researchers were able to estimate that the gene variant was under a strong selection advantage approximately 700 years ago. This period coincided with the period in history when bubonic plague was sweeping through Europe. The Black Death, as it was known, started in Italy in 1347 and during the next three years it moved across Europe, killing perhaps as many as three-quarters of the people it infected. The disease itself is thought to be bubonic plague, which is caused by a bacterium carried on the backs of rats. It can also be passed directly from human to human, which can result in death occurring within three days. The Black Death was so named as sufferers displayed a range of symptoms including the lymph nodes swelling with pus and breaking the blood vessels under the skin. This caused internal bleeding and turned the skin black. This outbreak of the Black Death lasted for over 300 years, killing at least 25 million people until it disappeared in 1670. However bubonic plague is a disease that still shows up every year in thousands of cases throughout Africa, Asia and the Americas. Bacterial similarities Even through the researchers can not be certain that bubonic plague drove the mutated gene to such a high level, the study has unearthed some intriguing similarities between Aids and the Black Death. O’Brien explains: ‘There are hundreds of different tissues that viruses or bacteria can infect. Both HIV and yersinia pestis, the bacteria that causes Black Death, interestingly attack exactly the same tissues.’ ‘The fact that precisely the same cells are the targets of this virus, the fact that the timing of this mutation is exactly when there was Black Death maybe indirect, but I think that they are telling coincidences that make the Black Death the most likely candidate for selective pressure.’ O’Brien now plans to work with scientists in Paris to establish if the presence of CCR5 in mice will lead them to be resistant to plague infection. Meanwhile it is hoped that this research could have implications for new approaches to HIV- Aids treatments. Which could be good news for those in areas of the world, such as Africa, where levels of CCR5 in its mutant form are known to be low. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ** > Yes, our genone (DNA) is complex, such that it is impossible to explain > its existence as a series of random accumulations of minute changes. > > If anything, the presence of Information within our DNA should be enough > to totally discredit Darwinian Evolution. > > > > Jojo > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 1:17 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic > Definitions > > The genome of an organism is more complex and adaptive then the > creationist’s arguments assume and are embodied in the genetic concept of > Epigenesis. > > Though the theory seems an obvious fact to us in today's genetic age, > however, the theory was not given much credence in former times because of > the dominance for many centuries of Creationist theories of life's origins. > > In the same way that a stem cell can form many cell types: skin, heart, > nerve… and so on, so an organism can adapt to its environment through > epigenetic expression. > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is >> small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of >> natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex >> and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be >> some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other >> than natural selection that would cause the change. >> >> >> >> Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a >> fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a >> complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor >> change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be >> commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation >> that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as >> complex as an eye. >> >> >> >> I reject the basis of your argument. The above is an archaic assumption >> as follows. >> >> >> ** >> >> *Punctuated equilibrium* >> >> *Punctuated equilibrium* (also called *punctuated equilibria*) is a >> theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will >> exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological >> history, remaining in an extended state called *stasis*. When >> significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is >> generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching >> speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a >> species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually >> transforming into another. >> >> Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of >> phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly >> and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called >> anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and >> continuous. >> >> In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a >> landmark paper developing this theory and called it *punctuated >> equilibria*. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic >> speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic >> homeostasis,[4]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-3>as >> well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that >> the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually >> nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of >> most fossil species. >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Hello gang, >>> >>> In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of >>> Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground >>> work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of >>> posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine >>> my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between >>> Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I >>> hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep >>> the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless >>> attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in >>> Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But >>> if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. >>> >>> What is Darwinian Evolution? >>> >>> Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles >>> Darwin in his book "The Origin of Species". Later he wrote "The Descent of >>> Man" specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The >>> basic Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that >>> results in "features" that allow an individual animal or plant life to >>> survive a stress in its environment. When it survives, it passes down this >>> "Trait" to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live in >>> this new stressful environment thereby passing this trait down to its >>> progeny also. The trait enables the individual to survive hence the term >>> "Survival of the Fittest", or "Natural Selection". Darwin then takes this >>> idea of Natural Selection one step further and hypothesizes that this >>> natural selection process is the means by which variouis species emerge. >>> Hence species A mutates, survives, passes on its traits, then after several >>> generations. becomes another species B - hence the term "The origin of >>> Species". The nature or origin or mechanism of the mutation was unknown >>> to Darwin. DNA was not discovered in his lifetime. >>> >>> Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is >>> small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of >>> natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and >>> the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some >>> directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than >>> natural selection that would cause the change. In other words, Darwinian >>> Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully >>> developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex >>> organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change >>> per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be >>> commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation >>> that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as >>> complex as an eye. >>> >>> Darwinian Evolution implies the following: >>> >>> 1. The change must be small and minor and slow in an individual. The >>> mutation results in a small change or small feature. If the change is big, >>> there must be some other mechanism or directed Intelligence behind that >>> change. Darwin recognized this and said so in his book. >>> >>> 2. The change or the new trait or feature must confer to that >>> individual a survival advantage. Otherwise, that useful trait will simply >>> die with that individual. A trait that may be useful but does not confer a >>> survival advantage is a trait that does not result in natural selection >>> hence Darwinian Evolution is NOT in operation here. >>> >>> 3. The trait must not cause any impairment or susceptibility to the >>> individual. In other words, a trait that confer an increased survival >>> advantage but also causes an increased susceptibility to some other >>> stress will not result in natural selection. For example, a trait that >>> results in an individual to survive a drought in food must not make that >>> same individual be more susceptible to Cold weather. If it does, the >>> chances of the trait being sucessfully passed down commulatively generation >>> after generation is minimized and the survival of that individual will not >>> be any better statistically compared to another individual without that >>> mutated trait. >>> >>> 4. The trait or change must be permanent. In other words, the change >>> must not revert back or disappear once the stress is removed. If it does, >>> it will not be additive and hence can not result in a complex organ like an >>> eye. This will result in natural selection only for a few generations and >>> then that advantage dissappears and other individuals can compete again >>> which will result in a dilution of that trait in the general population. >>> >>> 5. Each successive additive change must confer a survival advantage >>> each and every step until a complex organ results. To illustrate, lets say >>> it takes 5 steps to develop an eye. Change A, Change B, Change C, Change D >>> and Change E results in a fully developed eye. (I am using only 5 steps to >>> simplify the discussion. In reality, the steps required to develop a human >>> eye requires billions of steps.) Change A must confer a survival >>> advantage to the individual. An additive change B is added to change A >>> that results in his children having a survival advantage also. Change C is >>> added and must also confer a survival advantage to his grandchildren. >>> Change D must also confer a survival advantage to his great grandchildren >>> and change E results in a fully developed eye conferring a survival >>> advantage also. Each additive change must confer a survival advantage for >>> natural selection to work. If only one step in the chain does not confer a >>> sruvival advantage, the entire series of changes previous to the change >>> could be lost when that individual does not outperform the rest of the >>> population. All the hard work and useful changes will simply be diluted in >>> the population again. Natural selection is broken and a complex organ can >>> not develop. >>> >>> 6. The evolution process occurs and operates over many generations. An >>> evolution or mutation that occurs in one individual is NOT Darwinian >>> Evolution, since no Natural selection is in operation. >>> >>> 7. The change or trait must not affect an individual's reproductive >>> ability. If there is no reproduction, there is no natural selection, hence >>> no Darwinian Evolution. >>> >>> 8. The change must have a random mechanism. If the cause of the change >>> is not random, that evolution is NOT Darwinian Evolution by definition. >>> >>> 9. Natural Selection is the only mechanism that will differentiate one >>> change from another change. In other words, within an individual we can >>> not say a change is useful or not, until it enables that individual to have >>> a survival advantage. Hence, natural selection operates between >>> generations, not within a single generation. There is not natural >>> selection process within a generation or within an individual. Natural >>> selection can not be invoked within a generation to explain what mutation >>> is useful and what is not useful. A process that operates within a >>> generation is NOT natural selection. A process that does not confer a >>> survival advantage is NOT natural selection. Survival is the criteria for >>> natural selection. An individual has no mechanism wherein it can decide >>> which change to retain or to not retain. The change is retained and acts >>> only if the individual survives. I can not emphasize this enough. >>> >>> 10. The change must enable the individual to "outsurvive" other >>> individuals in his group. It is not enough to merely allow the individual >>> to survive, but it must cause that individual to "outsurvive" others. If >>> it is not outsurviving other individuals, the change will merely get >>> diluted in the gene pool and lost. >>> >>> >>> In the next post, I will define the difference between Microevolution >>> (aka Adaptation) and Macroevolution (aka Darwinian Evolution). >>> >>> >>> Enjoy >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
