Is evolution proven science or theory

[PRB]

within the same species yes....and it is a duplication of already existing DNA....does it create a totally new DNA chain?
i.e....does it change the pattern of a HOX gene or its purpose to create a dif species

[PRB]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

It occurs over several generations of organisms through gene duplication. This addition is usually free from selective pressure, so there is no negative effect on the host organism.




And that, in a nutshell, is why my involvment in this discussion is limited to the above fact.

or too put it another way...Has a mutation been observed which has added new and beneficial genetic information to the pre existing gene pool which was inherited from the parents of the mutant?

[PRB]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

No. Domains with independent functions mix to combine and produce new complex functions.

Over several generations.

A distinct species is created when a population of that species is physically isolated form the rest, forming its own distinct gene pool. Natural selection will produce mutations and traits that the rest of the species will not develop. Eventually, so many mutations will build that the two species are incompatible with each other and cannot interbreed.

Viola - a distinct species.

Damnit, PRB, now I've got TWO posts in this hodgepodge!

interesting, an example please. And that is an example of devolving is it not...or a lessening of DNA strain?

[GratefulCitizen]

Concerning polonium halos:

-They are sometimes found in magma intrusions (rock which had been liquified).
-Almost all of the polonium halos come from isotopes produced exclusively by the U-238 decay series.

These facts tend to refute the "day 1" theory of polonium halos.
That being said, polonium halos are an interesting clue.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by PRB

or too put it another way...Has a mutation been observed which has added new and beneficial genetic information to the pre existing gene pool which was inherited from the parents of the mutant?

Experiments have been done on thousands of successive generations of fruit flies for over a century to test exactly that question.

The conclusion: <crickets chirping>.

[Trapper John]

Oh boy, I feel like Daniel entering the lion's den here, but here it goes:

First, GC, you are absolutely correct, we need initial starting conditions and indeed the laws of nature apply; e.g. thermodynamics. So, Brush Okie, entropy did not suddenly reverse itself. The interpretation of the third law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy (disorder) will dominate a system unless energy is provided into the system to maintain its order. In other words, life requires input of energy or disorder (death) will result. In fact life is a continual struggle to override entropy - energy input is required.

Second, the theory of evolution is just that - a theory. However, the preponderance of evidence supports this theory. The rules of logic dictate that we cannot "prove" a theory only "disprove" it by credible evidence that the theory cannot explain. Alelks, Brother, I love ya (no not in "that" way Dusty) but your entire post is not scientific "fact" and does not disprove the theory of evolution (I will refute these assertions point by point later).

PRB, your assertions re: DNA and accumulation of mutations, is behind the times- about 47 years The entire theory itself is evolving, but not in such a way as to invalidate its underlying premise and especially not the broader understanding.

Towards that end, I have a little personal story on that point. As an undergraduate, I was studying cell biology. At one point, I was particularly intrigued by the apparent morphological similarity of chloroplasts and mitochondria. One day after lab, I went to Prof. Robert's office to discuss this with him. My thought was, could these two organelles (one in the Plant Kingdom and the other in the Animal Kingdom) have a common ancestral origin. He just smiled and shuffled through his books and papers behind his desk and handed me the seminal paper by Lynn Margulis on the symbiotic theory of evolution, now called endosymbiosis. I have posted two links below about Lynn Margulis and the theory of endosymbiosis.

At the time this was a highly controversial theory (now widely accepted) and was the first and so far only credible challenge to the notion that it was the accretion of random mutations and natural selection that was the fundamental driver of evolution. I later had the pleasure of listening to Prof. Margulis expound on her thoughts. She has had a profound impact in the field of evolutionary biology and our understanding of evolution.

More later.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/conte...ls/organelles/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...gulis-obtiuary

[PRB]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Absolutely.

Just ask the radiation resistant fungi inside Chernobyl.

When a fungi or bacteria becomes resistant

However, bacteria, fungi etc multiply radidy, accumulating genetic losses due to mutation....those are micro changes within the same species and we've agreed these exist. It is not a new organism, just a rearangement of its DNA with mutation.......iotw, it ain't a bird.

[PRB]

That's because I am older than 47 ....I'll look into that, looks interesting, the theory of it.
Can she, or does she, point to a definitive example in the macro sense or is she postulating at this point.
Being widely 'accepted' as a theory doesn't overy impress as Darwinism is so widely 'accepted' in the same vein.
If there is macro proof then that is a totally dif story.

Trapper, break it down for me in a nutshell....how has her theory changed the then know operational DNA experience of natural barrier, and mutation and natural selection?

[PRB]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

See post #23.... or antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Or human lactose tolerance.

it is a scientific fact that bacteria can become resistant to antb's via mutation via an anti pen enzyme...this mutation, is caused by a resorting or loss of the parent bacterias pre existing DNA, not a creation of new genetic information

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

See post #23.... or antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Affirming the consequent.

How do we know the bacteria had increased viability because of improved information in the mutated section of DNA?
It could very well have had increased viability because of lost information.

This would be consistent with PRB's view.

<edit>

Looks like PRB beat me to the trigger.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PRB

That's because I am older than 47 ....I'll look into that, looks interesting, the theory of it.
Can she, or does she, point to a definitive example in the macro sense or is she postulating at this point.
Being widely 'accepted' as a theory doesn't overy impress as Darwinism is so widely 'accepted' in the same vein.
If there is macro proof then that is a totally dif story.

And knowing your preference for the macro discussion that is exactly why I chose Margulis' work. We are going to start at the beginning and bring it forward ala Margulis. In the end, I think you will see evidence of how we humans are evolving. And by the way I am going to ask you to think of humans as complex symbiotic organisms (fact: most of our cells and our DNA is not human).

[PRB]

Darwinism is not the mutation of existing DNA within a species that changes that species to creat a sub species......what we've been discussing.
Darwinism is the creation of a new species, a complete and dif strain of DNA, from a mutation in another dif species.
Someone give me a scientific example of a DNA change that included HOX gene mutation that added beneficial replicating DNA that translated to a complete species change.....as that is Darwinism.
Since this had to happen thousands of times we must have lots of examples.

[PRB]

See Team Sgt, we can play nice...

[PRB]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

There's the real rub - looking for absolutes in evolution and natural selection in a futile process.

Why is that the case....there should be some linkage that is traceable, identifiable.
We can trace our ancestors back thousands of years yet not scientifically trace, identify a cross over pt.

ie. I gave my DNA to the Genome project that traced my 'family' back to the craddle of civilization based upon my DNA markers...it mirrored exactly what the family history was, thru eastern Europe etc.
Yet, that is within the species of course.
I'm asking in any species to identify a transitional moment of species change.

[PRB]

And by the way I am going to ask you to think of humans as complex symbiotic organisms (fact: most of our cells and our DNA is not human).

I do think that, and why would having other molecular structure be 'not human'...everything is of 'this earth' as it were.