+++1

Quote:


Here you go, Culldav:

...... researchers were able to use evolutionary theory to make some testable predictions. If the ancestors of humans, the other higher primates, and guinea pigs originally had the ability to synthesize vitamin C then each of these species should still carry the evidence of this lost ability in their genetic material. In addition, researchers predicted that humans and the other higher primates would likely have the same cause for this lost ability, since the scientific evidence suggested that they have all descended from a relatively recent common ancestor. In other words, they predicted that it wasn't a mere coincidence; decent from a common ancestor was the explanation for why humans and other primates are all unable to synthesize vitamin C. Finally, researchers predicted that guinea pigs, a species that was known to be only distantly related to primates, would most likely show evidence of a different cause for this lost ability.

Eventually, researchers confirmed each of these predictions by finding GULO-related DNA sequences in genomes of humans, other higher primates, and guinea pigs. Just as predicted, the sequences exist as broken genes meaning that they are present but non-functional. Here you can see a portion of the human, chimpanzee, orangutan, macaque, and guinea pig sequences compared to the functional GULO sequence found in a cow. This evidence suggests that a frame shift mutation is what originally rendered the GULO gene non-functional in the ancestor of higher primates by creating a premature stop codon. Just as expected, this particular mutation is not found in the same location of the guinea pig sequence. Instead, the evidence suggests that a point mutation in a different part of the guinea part sequence may have been what broke the GULO gene in the ancestor of the modern guinea pigs, again, by creating a premature stop codon. These completely separate mutations both had the same result: they deactivated the GULO enzyme and rendered the bearers of the mutation and all of their descendants unable to produce their own vitamin C. For the animals that originally inherited these mutations their natural diet probably provided all of the vitamin C they needed. This explains how such a seemingly harmful mutation could become so prevalent that it is now found in all members of these populations. A closer analysis of the DNA sequences confirms another prediction of evolutionary theory. In comparison to humans, the chimpanzee's sequence was the most similar, followed by the orangutan's sequence, followed by the macaque's sequence, followed by the guinea pig and cow sequences. Furthermore, ever since the original mutations broke the genes the altered genetic material has accumulated mutations at exactly the rate that is predicted by the evolutionary theory.

So, there you have it. A close examination of the evidence leads to a powerful explanation of a large set of biological observations. These observations only make sense using the real science of evolution.

http://en.wikicaptions.org/wiki/Youtube:SF2N2lbb3dk

There's nothing whacked out about evolution.  

Quote:


Wrong as far as evolution is concerned. The above should help you understand this.

Quote:


You seem to have some weird idea about evolution floating around in your head. Of course other species have undergone evolution- whales, for example.

Quote:


Yup, you have some weird idea about it . How do you think blue whales came to be? Just popped into existence? Have you seen the fossil record on whales?  We still have Crocs that have been about for milllions of years. That doesn't mean that evolution hasn't occurred in other lifeforms. Look at the fossil record. Look at moths and industrialism, look at bacteria changing to become antiboitic resistant- It's all EVOLUTION.

Quote:


Evolution doesn't mean ever onward and upward to some  kind of perfection that you might imagine- it's genetic change and natural selection. That primates lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C didn't make them unfit to survive did it? So , they stuck around.

.. extinct even???

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 7:55pm:


We almost agree. I just think that evolution should be taught as part of biology, while creationism should be taught as part of social science or study of religions. Creationism is really just an extension of a specific religion or certain sects within that religion. (Abrahamic Monotheism)  . It is certainly not a competing paradigm within biology.

Thanks for the pick up on my typo.

We almost agree. I just think that evolution should be taught as part of biology, while creationism should be taught as part of social science or study of religions.

- Muso

No .. we actually agree! My original posts were a tad general in nature.

I merely stated that both paradigms ought to be taught; I never outlined/stipulated under which discipline/s.

I'll endeavour to be more thorough in future

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 8:31pm:


Nooooooooooo, you did more than that. You called them COMPETING PARADIGMS...You've just shifted ground.

muso wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 7:48pm:



I like this hidden/unselfconciously religious angle to your take on evolution. No evolutionist has ever thought that evolution is just chaotic change. The only way it has ever been conceptualised is as a process of improvement. There is an unconscious Robinson Crusoe aspect to it, or a teleology, if you like.

The odd thing is - it does not work with us. We do not adopt to our environment but alter it to our needs. We have imposed society (civilisation) between ourselves and nature.

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 8:49pm:


Actually, that's not a fair charge. The idea of improvement came from the outside by the likes of Herbert Spencer. Strictly speaking, improvement isn't inbuilt into the theory at all.

Yes, we do impose society between ourselves and nature, yet nature is still working away e.g bacteria and viruses will still be forces shaping the human genome.