The ultimate proof that evolution is true

ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The ultimate proof that evolution is true

Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence that makes the theory of evolution as real as gravity, would the following hit the nail on the cross? We have in our grasp the DNA sequences of several species including our own. With that data, we can now see patterns in our genome that match up with other species including viruses. Can we now not work backwards with this information and elucidate the primordial genome? And then recapitulate how it all unfolded with mutations, gene insertions/deletions, etc....? I imagine that this could all be done via a computer with lots of memory. Our genome is made of about 20,000 genes. It does not seem impossible to do. It would be a landmark publication in a peer journal say, SCIENCE.

Would it convince creationists? Doubtful. But such an undertaking would eliminate any doubt that over billions of years, a primordial genome (possibly RNA) evolved naturally into our human DNA genome.

And then maybe the ulimate experiment. Take that primordial genome and send it via rocket probes into the depths of Europa and where it will be released into the water. And then let nature take its course.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is an idea I love

 

But what we would see as evidence of direct ancestry the godly would simply label as evidence of a common designer.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, you have professional

Well, you have professional access to academic journals that I do not. However, I see some potential issues with the idea. Let's call my questions a pre-research peer review and see where it goes.

 

First up is the signal to noise ratio. Do you really think that the primordial genome can be obtained if you work that hard or is it lost to random mutations?

 

Second, if there even is a primordial genome, does that not assume an act of “special creation”? If not, you need to state where the fuck it came from.

 

Third, why do you even need a genome for evolution in the first place? Sure, that goes to questions of abiogenesis but even so, do you think that there is room for chemical evolution to occur before the boundary that we are willing to state that life unequivocally existed?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well, you have professional access to academic journals that I do not. However, I see some potential issues with the idea. Let's call my questions a pre-research peer review and see where it goes.

 

First up is the signal to noise ratio. Do you really think that the primordial genome can be obtained if you work that hard or is it lost to random mutations?

 

Second, if there even is a primordial genome, does that not assume an act of “special creation”? If not, you need to state where the fuck it came from.

 

Third, why do you even need a genome for evolution in the first place? Sure, that goes to questions of abiogenesis but even so, do you think that there is room for chemical evolution to occur before the boundary that we are willing to state that life unequivocally existed?

 

To addres your first point, there are a finite number of ways a gene can mutate, a chromosome altered. The following article demonstrates how a primordial genome could be elucidated based on conservation of gene sequences in different species:

http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/11/P12

In regards to your second and third points, I know you're playing the devil's advocate. Nitwits like Dinesh D'Souza who is devoid of any science background proudly shouts "AHA!!!! So where did the first replicating molecule come from?" There are indeed a number of abiogenesis theories that deserve serious consideration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). And of course there are plenty of self-replicator theories abound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cairns-Smith). And despite all the plausible hypotheses for DNA pre-history, theists are unyielding and lack any imagination.

And I would imagine the ignorant theists of yore (and I bet a number even today) could not fathom how a structure such as this snowflake could occur naturally:

 


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote: And I would

ragdish wrote:

 

And I would imagine the ignorant theists of yore (and I bet a number even today) could not fathom how a structure such as this snowflake could occur naturally:

 

yea, actually how does that happen, why do snowflakes form symmetrically instead of in random formations?

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
liberatedatheist

liberatedatheist wrote:

ragdish wrote:

 

And I would imagine the ignorant theists of yore (and I bet a number even today) could not fathom how a structure such as this snowflake could occur naturally:

 

yea, actually how does that happen, why do snowflakes form symmetrically instead of in random formations?

 

Beautiful picture.  Snowflakes are symmetrical because water (ice) molecules are symmetrical.  They are usually six sided because the the two hydrogen atoms are 60 degrees apart with the oxygen atom at the apex of the triangle.  60 * 6 = 360 degrees, a circle but with points, and so a hexagon is formed - usually.  They are almost always formed around a particle of dust or other molecule to give them a starting point and the shape of this starting particle will influence the structure.  Which is where we get the idea of each snowflake being unique in shape.

Chemistry and physics are more fascinating than any god/s/dess could ever be.

edit: It is an example of a stochastic process - not random, but with elements of randomness, not deterministic, but there are boundaries.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
1.  Evolution is much

1.  Evolution is much better established and understood than gravity.  That is, evolution is *more* real than gravity by a significant margin.

2. It's not really worth wasting time or research on something like this beyond curiosity.  If creationists aren't already convinced, they aren't going to be- dissemination of the overwhelming proof that exists would seem a more practical method (e.g. further education, and waiting for the old generations to die off).

3. It is entirely possible that life convergently or cooperatively evolved on Earth from a number of starter organisms (we know that in evolution, life doesn't just branch, but independent lineages also fuse back into each other- this complicates things to a profound degree).  Either way, as mentioned, the signal to noise ratio would be very high going back so far- we have already demonstrated this well enough with relational comparisons between near relatives.

4. Europa probably has microbial life on it already (and possibly larger life forms)- lets not make a mess of other planets.  Mars has probably already been contaminated despite that it likely has its own subsurface life too.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, I still don't really

Well, I still don't really think that you can get back to a genetic last common ancestor that way. It is a problem that comes up in information theory all the time.

 

Consider the human genome. We have mountains of data to say just what that really means. As it happens, we also have sequenced the genomes of a few rather well preserved H. Neanderthals. Not many and widely separated in both time and geography but enough to know something about how we are related to them in a very general sense.

 

Does that mean that we can construct the genome of, say, H. Erectus? Not by a long shot. We could probably list out what we know to be common but given the relative lack of data on H. Neanderthal, there will be holes in the data that can only be filled in as a matter of guess work. And whatever we guess does not mean that any specific inclusion must be the data that “ought to be there”.

 

So if we can't really go back a mere million years, how good can a guess be on a genome that has not been seen since the Cambrian?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Billy Bob Jenkins
Theist
Billy Bob Jenkins's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2010-07-14
User is offlineOffline
A few questions every

A few questions every atheist should consider:

 

1) If humans came from monkeys, then where did monkeys come from?

 

2) If the Earth is round, like science says, and not flat like the Bible says, then how come it doesn't roll around and squash everybody?

 

3) If there's no God, then who made the stars?

 

4) If the Earth is billions of years old, why aren't there trees with billions of rings?

The Truest Christian these atheists will ever meet. I worship the only Lord at the Church with the Truest Christians: Landover Baptist.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
ROFL I don't usually deal

 I don't usually deal with science posts because at best I am a mildly informed spectator but are you serious? 

Billy Bob Jenkins wrote:

A few questions every atheist should consider:

 

1) If humans came from monkeys, then where did monkeys come from?

If you read this post you would know the whole theory goes all the way back to the most basic organisms. But this is probably the only question you have worth answering for the real science geniuses.

 

 

Billy Bob Jenkins wrote:

 

2) If the Earth is round, like science says, and not flat like the Bible says, then how come it doesn't roll around and squash everybody?

Because the spaghetti monster hasn't taken up bowling yet. Put an ant on a basketball and spin it in the air on the tip of your finger, unless you drop the ball to the ground the ant will survive. Magic!

Billy Bob Jenkins wrote:

3) If there's no God, then who made the stars?

Obviously it was Elvis, there were no stars before him. The question is who made god? King Philip II and Olympias who gave birth to Alexander The Great the first person I know of to declare himself god. He beat Jesus by over 300 years. 

 

Billy Bob Jenkins wrote:

 

4) If the Earth is billions of years old, why aren't there trees with billions of rings?

Trees don't live billions of years. All life dies eventually, even trees (and jesus), unfortunately common sense dies quicker.

Questions considered and answered. Pop quizzes are fun. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
The persona of BBJ is

The persona of BBJ is serious, but the person at the keyboard isn't serious, they are just fucking with people.  Honestly, as heavy handed as BBJ is I'm surprised so many people keep biting.

 

This is what happens to a forum that doesn't get enough traffic.  People get tired of the same arguments with the same people so they start goofing off.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well, I still don't really think that you can get back to a genetic last common ancestor that way. It is a problem that comes up in information theory all the time.

 

Consider the human genome. We have mountains of data to say just what that really means. As it happens, we also have sequenced the genomes of a few rather well preserved H. Neanderthals. Not many and widely separated in both time and geography but enough to know something about how we are related to them in a very general sense.

 

Does that mean that we can construct the genome of, say, H. Erectus? Not by a long shot. We could probably list out what we know to be common but given the relative lack of data on H. Neanderthal, there will be holes in the data that can only be filled in as a matter of guess work. And whatever we guess does not mean that any specific inclusion must be the data that “ought to be there”.

 

So if we can't really go back a mere million years, how good can a guess be on a genome that has not been seen since the Cambrian?

 

We share 99.7 percent of the neanderthal genome. It would be totally rational to assume that this gene conservation was present in H erectus--maybe add an extra fraction of a percentage or two difference. Suppose we discover the entire genetic array for human language development (and I imagine this will occur in my lifetime). Let's say 30 genes in someway are involved in shaping the neocortical regions and subcortical nuclei to allow us to have language capability (eg. FOXP2 gene is an important one and mutations result in severe language and speech impairment). Now we then figure out which of those same 30 genes are present in the neanderthal. The difference would have to be present in that 0.3 percent. And as I said before, there are a finite number of ways a gene can mutate. Thus, it would not be an impossible task to predict what the H Erectus language genes were likely to have been. So those holes in the data would have to have been filled by predictable genes (and not mere guesswork) which when mutated resulted in a divergence from H erectus to achieve a robust language capacity in H sapiens.

 

And I would further contend that our earliest mammalian ancestor (as seen in this figure) shared about 90% of our genome given that is the ball park figure when comparing human to the mouse DNA. Indeed, I think we can make logical predictions of our primordial DNA in our earliest common ancestor.

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I am not buying into this.

I am not buying into this. Tell me more specifically how this is even possible...

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
i really got a laugh outta

i really got a laugh outta beyond savings comment


subtlehustle1972
Posts: 3
Joined: 2010-09-18
User is offlineOffline
really?

 Are you serious? Have you ever seen photos from NASA of the earth from space? IT'S ROUND! No one has ever fallen off the edge of your flat earth. Although we have launched ourselves into space using rockets created by science. There are no trees with billions of rings because all trees eventually die and decompose just like all organic matter. The same way that your corpse will decompose in the grave while you go nowhere but eternal sleep, not heaven or hell.