What is Digg?100 Comments
- spen949, on 06/23/2008, -2/+27I see ALOT of people in desperate need of an introductory evolutionary biology book. Seriously people, educate yourself before you say something stupid.
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/23/2008, -2/+20Why do you keep calling an observable and repeatable phenomenon a fraud?
That you go for the easy answer instead of actually investigating is rather telling. - suckaPU, on 06/23/2008, -8/+23don't talk like that, it's not a miracle
- Alenzia, on 06/23/2008, -0/+14It's these kinds of discoveries that make me glad that research is an important part of modern life.
- Terr01, on 06/23/2008, -0/+12Ice crystals have patterns. And in any conventional sense of the phrase those snowflakes "Just Happen".
So you're telling me that God--excuse me, an incredibly powerful and otherwise utterly undetectable intelligent designer--personally designs every single pattern-bearing snowflake as the water crystallizes in the atmosphere? - Michiko280, on 06/23/2008, -0/+11Learned about this in a developmental biology class... really awesome stuff!
- Someguy101, on 02/19/2009, -3/+12I don't understand it so clearly god must have done it.
You know what else clearly must have happened? Santa must have delivered all those presents to me under the Christmas tree, the easter bunny had to have left eggs all over my yard and the tooth fairy left me cash under my pillow. What other explanation could there possibly be?
Just because you don't understand something does NOT mean it is a miracle. It's long past time for the world to let go of superstition and start thinking critically about the world around us. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9"Modern physics has no concept of spirituality"
...nor should it - why would a valid scientific field want to discredit itself by including something for which there exists no evidence? - MammasMilk, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8I'm sure you can make patters and yet I doubt you are in danger of being called intelligent.
- fyngyrz, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7I suggest you read Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science"; then you would know one way, at least, that extremely simple operations can give rise to seashell patterns, zebra stripes, branching structures, and more. Nature may or may not be using that way (though it seems very likely to me it is) but once you know it doesn't have to be difficult, perhaps that whole "miracle" feeling will land in the trash with angels, elves and fairies.
- fredmv, on 06/23/2008, -16/+22It's simple guys: God! Why bother with all of the fascinating details when can just undermine it all and credit an imaginary being?
/sarcasm - Taiyoryu, on 06/23/2008, -2/+8how far you get buried depends on whether you're being sarcastic or serious
- kingmanic, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6Life started as self propagating molecules and all the subsequent complexity derive from the fact that the world is analog thus there are often errors. It is currently thought that the initial "life" was self propagating RNA. RNA that could build copies of itself via re-arrangement of other molecules. There is transcription because that is what life is, a self propagating pattern. Your viewing it backwards thinking the process arose to support a cell when in fact a cell arose to support the process. It seems most of your questions arise because of this mis understanding.
Mutation occur because it's an analogue system. Sometimes the transcription enzymes put the wrong DNA when it's duplicating the DNA. Sometimes there is an agent which insert itself changing the chemicals characteristics of a base from one to more resemble another. Sometimes there is a even such as high energy radiation hitting a base which changes it's properties and introduce errors. Some time a virus inserts DNA in, sometimes a slip up which alters large tracks of encoding. Sometimes it's a deletion due to the same factors. All of this consequently alters the shape and sometimes the faction of proteins. So a protein that once coded for a brown pigment now codes a red one. Or a protein that once help 2 oxygens molecule now only holds 1 or maybe 3.
Transcription points happen at set points which the transcription enzymes have coded into them. Early life probably used a simpler self-propagating RNA model which eventually switched to DNA as DNA is more stable thus makes copies with less errors. A system that makes better copies will soon be the dominant system in some circumstances. Note that RNA based "life" tends to mutate much more rapidly leading to a lot of wasted energy on copies that aren't' viable.
I think a lot of your question are derived at a problem is perspective. You live in a macro biotic world and your thoughts on everything derive from a world view from that scale. Errors are much more frequent then you think, and systems are much less precise then you think. It's all about probabilities. The first proteins were probably an error, some RNA wanted to make a copy of itself but ended up making something else in addition (perhaps 2 strands fused and one strand mutated to make something like a cell wall etc..).
High school science may give a foggy incomplete picture but Science has a decent handle on it. - nedy78, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6It is amazing that biologists are starting to isolate cell migration patterns. Like it stated in the last section of the article it could have dramatic effects on how cells spread and break off of tumors into other parts of the body. Presumably if there is early detection of cancer, and it could be isolated into that spot, the chances for recovery would be awesome.
- nitsuj, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6"Patterns indicate intelligence..."
This statement is false. Most observable patterns are naturally occurring phenomena. Simple rules can and do give rise to complex patterns without intelligence. This is easy to see.
"The answer you want to hear: "Just happens.""
Once again the desperate voice of willful ignorance. You want to think this because it's easier (lazier) for you to feel comfortable about a world you're ill-equipped to understand. Your faith has blinded you completely. - kingmanic, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7Your using 'beg the question' wrong.
Also the answer to your question is mutations. They happen all the time and change expression on molecular levels resulting in very complex interactions on other levels. In general life does not tend towards complexity, it only tends towards not dying. There have been noted changes in organisms (especially in plants) where the genome became simpler not more complex. - IllBeBack, on 06/23/2008, -1/+6Biological patterns develop as a result of a process called convergence. Even patterns in nature such as the lines of sand created by ocean waves are due to convergence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution - StaticThunder, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5The butterfly was not designed. It draws your attention because it needs to attract a mate, and the same devices that make it distinctive to male butterflies (bright colors, striking patterns) make it distinctive to you.
Why not study tapeworms, seedplanter, or would you not find out you were created if you studied something ugly? Cherrypicking the argument? - Terr01, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5In truth, he's confusing cause and effect.
Intelligence is not necessary to cause patterns.
Intelligence correlates in perceiving them.
In many ways, people are naturally wired as pattern recognition matchines, even when those patterns either contain flaws we ignore or are demonstrably coincidental.
We see bunnies in the clouds, faces in stains and spills, and convince ourselves that we can see certain patterns in gambling. And quite a bunch of people in nice padded rooms do much more than that.
As a possible flame-war starter: Perhaps there's a reason so many religion icons get found in water stains under highways and in the curls of a cinnamon roll. Or rather, that there's a perception/reporting bias towards the very religious. - StaticThunder, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5This is a troll. Everyone knows all the descendents of Atlantis were killed in the Venusian cheesecake massacre of 12,000 BC.
- 4DFX, on 06/23/2008, -2/+6ID-iot alert!
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4"...study nature and you shall learn the truth."
Yeah - common ancestry. All that "designed" and "created" stuff? Not so much. - lordewoks, on 06/23/2008, -8/+12There are patterns and algorithms to determine all these things. We, currently, are just not intelligent enough to figure it out or see the bigger picture.
- renagadex2, on 06/23/2008, -4/+8You're lame.
- MammasMilk, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Hey, it pays the bills and an incredibly powerful and otherwise utterly undetectable intelligent designer has to eat.
'course it wouldn't be so bad if he/she/it was in a union. - Vodd9, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Also, why do most of us find the butterfly patterns shown in the picture beautiful?
- eir574, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4@PeeEqualsNP
Are you asking how the cell "knows" where a certain gene is in the DNA that it needs to transcribe? If so, you're asking about gene regulation, which is not something we have completely worked out. The simple answer is that there are sequences upstream of start codons to which proteins called transcription factors bind. You can read more about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_factor . This is oversimplified and won't answer all of your questions, but a simple model is that a transcription factor binds to these upstream sequences in response to a signal that the gene needs to be transcribed. For instance, this is a paragraph from the wikipedia page describing one such system:
"Estrogen signaling is an example of a fairly short signaling cascade that involves the estrogen receptor transcription factor: estrogen is secreted by tissues such as the ovaries and placenta, crosses the cell membrane of the recipient cell, and is bound by the estrogen receptor in the cell's cytoplasm. The estrogen receptor then goes to the cell's nucleus and binds to its DNA binding sites, changing the transcriptional regulation of the associated genes."
Similar processes occur in response to environmental stimuli. Of course, the net result of these processes isn't always to turn on the transcription of a gene. Sometimes a gene is down regulated in response to stimuli. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5So in addition to being confused, you're also deluded about your ancestry (Atlantis? How very fanciful of you) and have no idea about how evolution works.
We did not "come from monkeys", we share a common ancestor with modern apes. Our history as ***** sapiens began somewhere between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago in Africa, spreading outward from there.
How do we know this? In a word, evidence - something you lack. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4"my ancestors did not come from Africa."
Don't kid yourself - the evidence says otherwise.
"The way that I understand things is by studying nature"
Studying? Well, whatever you're attempting, you're doing it wrong - try leaving this sort of thing to the professionals next time.
"Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous." --Confucius
"Evolution is a spiritual process."
No really, it is a biological process - populations adapting to better fit and compete in their environments due to selection pressures acting upon heritable and imperfectly-replicating traits. - tallguyg, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4Should I stay or should i go now?
- baralo, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4..but, if you think of DNA as the first step in a proteonomic cascade the article, and the tens of thousands of labs working on these interactions, is brutaly rational.
- Raytown, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4According to modern physics they really aren't "patterns" at all. The pattern ,(and that goes for EVERY pattern), we see is an illusory response created by our minds necessity to categorize things in order to understand and interpret things for our survival.
- Typhoon2009, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3my favorite pattern is that of a nautilus' shell.
- kinggimped, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4People need to read more Rudyard Kipling :)
- kingmanic, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3DNA vs RNA:
DNA is very stable and doesn't mutate often. RNA is chemically reactive and thus changes more often. Early life would have been RNA, which would have been both information storage and information assembler. DNA is less reactive, so it cannot do both. - rayraym0fucka, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3If you stay will there be trouble?
- kingmanic, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3"So, if I am understanding this correctly, functionality is determined by shape and location of codon, which is determined by the ordering/pairing of the 4 or 5 base pairs. Any number of outside entities are ready to start the transcription process and could change the order/pairing of the pairs on the DNA/RNA strand therefore changing the functionality. You also stated that these types of errors happen more often than we think."
DNA is information. Proteins are the ones with functions. DNA is transcribed into proteins in a couple of different processes. Changes to the DNA cause changes to the shape of the transcribed proteins and thus functionality of the proteins. DNA has only 4 base pairs. RNA has 3 of the same bases and a variant of the 4th (uracil vs Thymine). The structural backbone differs between the two. RNA can serve similar functions as DNA (storing data) but it's less stable (more chemically reactive). DNA requires some proteins to help create proteins or make a copy of itself. The helpers will transcribe/translate anything with the right promoter and start codon and generally the right shape. Thats how viruses grow, by hijacking the machinery of a cell. Changes (Mutations) are common, but often irrelevant because it changes sequences that aren't house keeping sequences (promoters, start ,stop, structural) and not expressed sequences (sequences that code for a protein).
"I've read about how eukaryotic DNA gets "packaged" to try and protect it from such interfering entities. This involves winding and wrapping the DNA around certain materials. Is this a part of the encoding of the DNA, to wind and wrap around these kind of materials; Do the histones and chromatin recognize DNA and have to transcribe it before they package it to protect it from being transcribed? Or is this simply a property of the relationship between the three entities?"
Yup, DNA is packaged in ways to promote transcription of some areas, inhibit it in others, and to protect it from mutagens (high energy radiation, certain chemicals, virii, etc . . .).Histones are agents in packaging and Chromatin is packaged DNA. The bits that are being read are unspoiled by certain proteins, read by others, and the results assembled into end proteins elsewhere (near by in prokaryotes and outside the nucleus in eukaryotes). When not actively being transcribed they are spooled up and packaged to prevent too much damage or mutation. - MidnightRealism, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3CrazedLeper has admitted he never went to an institute of higher learning and thus is operating at best at a high school graduate level. Disregard all of his comments on this sort of subject.
- nitsuj, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4"'Monkey Talkers' are people who think that their..."
Nobody asked you. - Mnementh2230, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Or perhaps they're brainwashed into thinking some supposedly all powerful wizard in the sky created them?
The problem here is that there's no evidence for creationism, and MOUNTAINS of evidence for the theory of evolution. Evolution is FACT, and is repeatable in a lab. We have a complete fossil record for almost an entire phylum of life. Fossil records, demonstrated genetic ancestry... the list goes on and on. Creationism? Well, there's... wait... um... NOTHING. - StaticThunder, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Atlanteans are well-known for having poor taste in art.
- kingmanic, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3OVER VIEW:
DNA/RNA is linear data. They are a stream of data in a huge strand. There is some 3d structure to it which helps it regulate transcription and translation but for now consider it a single thread.
The data is a set of 4(5) base pairs which create a triplet code (codons). Like a music score it reads in one direction with start and stop codons. Codons are degenerate(more then one code map to a particular amino acid. DNA/RNa sequences code into proteins like a linear blue print. changes to the code change which amino acid is inserted when. Amino acids have shapes and active spots. The shape and active spots determine the function. so changes to the code, change the shape of the end product. which in turn change the function. Some changes hardly do anything others can drastically change the features of an organism.
Similarly it all has to do with shape. the contact/reading portion of the transcription/translation enzyme has a particular shape which the start codon fits into. Things that resemble this shape (like Viruses) will also induce it to bind. The shape of the end codon changes the shape of the protein to "kick" it off at the right time. It's probabilistic as well. There are many many copies of the enzyme looking for places to start transcription. Think of it like flipping a coin on it's edge. A single straight up flip is unlikely to land on it's edge. But the shape of the DNA and the structure of it is like putting a lot of glue on the floor, and the count of the enzymes is like throwing many many coins. So while it's unlikely a straight single flip of a coin onto a normal floor would land on it's edge, the odds are much greater if the floor has a lot of glue and you threw thousands of coins. Thats how the system works, thousands of translation/transcription related enzymes looking to bind to energetically favorable spots.
"You said before that "In general life does not tend towards complexity, it only tends towards not dying". But then you state that "Early life probably used a simpler self-propagating RNA model which eventually switched to DNA as DNA is more stable thus makes copies with less errors","
DNA isn't less complicated than RNA. They are very similar except DNA is more chemically stable. Their base pairs heavily resemble each other. There are still a large number of RNA "organisms" such as viruses. There are even simpler self replicating protiens (prions, like mad cow disease).
Error occurs when the daughter strand (the one just made) is not the same as the mother (the original). While the original likely doesn't care, the system as a whole favors the transcription that has higher fidelity. If two things can make copies of themselves 10/s but one makes 8 copies able to make more while the other one only makes 3, the one that can make more good copies will have more copies. Now imagine they compete for materials and you get an idea of how the system works and why DNA life is more abundant.
There are multiple strategies that they can take as well. So one can make 10 copies a second with 8/10 good copies in general while another only makes 3/10 good ones but can make 100 copies a second etc.. The only absolute value judgment is which one makes more copies. That sort of how life works.
PS. Can you simplify your questions. Too much to digest makes responding hard. The analogy you used was also somewhat confused. - PeeEqualsNP, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2P.S. It's also fun to watch myself get dugg down for simply asking questions. I don't wish to enforce beliefs one way or another onto anyone, I simply wish to gain knowledge on which to better make/support my individual decision. I guess that offends some people...
- IllBeBack, on 06/23/2008, -4/+6What then created the intelligent designer?
- Niightwitch, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3There's nothing wrong with a joke involving books, but since I'm only familiar with Rudyard Kipling in a very general way, your joke went over my head. It would have helped those of us who are more literary-impaired if you had explained your Kipling reference a bit more. Help us all to appreciate the joke.
- Duositex, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3Snowflakes (unless you want to call bacteria condensation nuclei) are not a biological pattern.
- Varz, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2*cough* pseudoscience ***** *cough*
- j4mie, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2The article you linked to has nothing to do with what you said. You may be thinking of *emergence* rather than *convergence*:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
But still, saying that "Biological patterns develop as a result of a process called emergence" is like saying "cave painting develop as a result of a process of applying pigment to rocks". It's absolutely true, but it doesn't actually answer any questions, such as how the pigment is made, what tools are used, or why people painted caves in the first place.
Emergence just means that complex macro-level structure is a result of simple micro-level interactions. It doesn't say anything about what those micro-level interactions actually *are*. That's exactly what this paper is trying to do. Fascinating stuff. - Varz, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2"Just happens"
LOL
If only you understood the irony of your statement. - Mnementh2230, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2A pattern does NOT imply an inThere's so much wrong with this statement, I hardly know where to begin. Maybe, if you knew a single damn thing about biology, you might be qualified to discount certain aspects about the theory of evolution. However, as you have no special training or education in the field, you're just a loony who cries out in the night because established fact contradicts your fantasy world. How pathetic.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is