Evolution and Religion

[loseyourname]

Please read my edit. Maybe that will clarify things for you.

[loseyourname]

Nonsense drivel, Mousy? I just showed that the man who carried out that calculation lied. Does that really not show you anything?

[loseyourname]

By the way, this is from http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton...ogy/bio020.htm

Chlorophyll and hemoglobin are very different molecules. Hemoglobin is a protein, chlorophyll is not. Hb is a hemoglobin composed of four protein subunits (2 pairs called alpha and beta: so Hb = 2 alphas + 2 betas, plus the heme group that binds iron. The point of the subunits is that they each bind one oxygen molecule, and they interact so that when one binds oxygen, the others can then bind to their oxygens more easily. The result of this is that hemoglobin is a very efficient oxygen carrier that holds onto oxygen tightly at high atmospheric oxygen levels (in the arteries and lungs) but gives up oxygen easily at lower levels of environmental oxygen (in the body tissues that need oxygen). Without hemoglobin in the blood, the blood could carry only about 2% of the oxygen that it can with hemoglobin present. Chlorophyll is not a protein, but a hydrocarbon molecule that has one part that binds magnesium and absorbs light. the absorption of light changes the energy state of the molecule, and that energy is passed onto other molecules in the chloroplast to drive photosynthesis.

I've attached a picture of a chlorophyll molecule. Notice that there are no amino acids.

[loseyourname]

Just so all can see that again, the Mouse is lying, or being lied to. Whatever the case may be, I must say it is rather sad.

[Anonymouse]

Please read my edit. Maybe that will clarify things for you.

It still begs the question of why each organism is geared to that specific number of hemoglobins, not their function. Furthermore the statement you quoted about change was actually referring to amino acids and change regarding them, not hemoglobin, so get your criticisms straight.

[loseyourname]

Dude, do you know anything about proteins? The piece I quoted referred to the sequence of amino acids within a protein. Any protein, really. Hemoglobin was the example picked by me, not by the article. It claimed that if you changed the sequence, the protein would no longer function. That isn't true, and I told you why it isn't true. Again, the men you are getting your information from are lying. Flat out. Be a little stronger of mind and actually look into these things yourself. Don't just take the words of liars.

[loseyourname]

It still begs the question of why each organism is geared to that specific number of hemoglobins.

By the way, different organims do not have different numbers of hemoglobins. They have different amino acids sequences within their hemoglobins. As I said, the average fish has an alpha hemoglobin (which is one of four pieces to the molecule) that differs by 73 amino acids from the average human. The average chimpanzee has no variation from the average human, and the average gorilla differs by one. These, of course, are only averages. In fact, not all humans have the same hemoglobin. The reason for this is simply non-expressive mutation. Most mutation is completely benign, in that is has no effect whatsoever on the function of a given protein. For one thing, there are many different nucleotide sequences that all result in the same amino acid being expressed, and so no change whatsoever will even be noticeable at the molecular level. But beyond that, even mutations that result in a different amino acid being expressed are not necessarily going to change the conformation of the protein that the amino acid is a part of, for the reason I gave earlier - that many amino acids, though different in the elements they contain, behave in exactly the same manner. Thus, there are literally millions of different overall sequences you can have for a compete hemoglobin molecule that will all resuly in a fully functional molecule that is indistinguishable from any other hemoglobin without doing some form of spectral or photometric analysis.

Finally, to answer your question as to why we see different molecules in different species, well, they have evolved separately. It's just random genetic drift, benign mutations, made evident by the fact that we even see variation within a species. Not all humans have the same hemoglobin, and this is due simply to chance drift.

[Anonymouse]

By the way, different organims do not have different numbers of hemoglobins. They have different amino acids sequences within their hemoglobins. As I said, the average fish has an alpha hemoglobin (which is one of four pieces to the molecule) that differs by 73 amino acids from the average human.

That is what I was referring to, the amino acids, that was what my question was geared to, and that was what the statement of the article spoke of regarding change, you have still not answered how a change in amino acids will not affect the organism.

We can even take nucleotides and how they are all arranged in a specific pattern and to change that would ruin the nucleotide in whatever function it carries.

Finally, to answer your question as to why we see different molecules in different species, well, they have evolved separately. It's just random genetic drift, benign mutations, made evident by the fact that we even see variation within a species. Not all humans have the same hemoglobin, and this is due simply to chance drift.

This is tautological and we are once again back to the assumption of evolution and all the assumed mechanisms that lead it.

[loseyourname]

Here's another piece from the talk origins archive that explains genetic drift: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html

This part, in particular, stands out (notice the bold-faced type):

The relative importance of drift and selection depends, in part, on estimated population sizes. Drift is much more important in small populations. It is important to remember that most species consist of numerous smaller inbreeding populations called "demes". It is these demes that evolve.

Studies of evolution at the molecular level have provided strong support for drift as a major mechanism of evolution. Observed mutations at the level of gene are mostly neutral and not subject to selection. One of the major controversies in evolutionary biology is the neutralist-selectionist debate over the importance of neutral mutations. Since the only way for neutral mutations to become fixed in a population is through genetic drift this controversy is actually over the relative importance of drift and natural selection.

[loseyourname]

That is what I was referring to, the amino acids, that was what my question was geared to, and that was what the statement of the article spoke of regarding change, you have still not answered how a change in amino acids will not affect the organism.

Mousy, I just explained this. Nothing ever changes an amino acid. When you change a nucleotide (which is what a mutation is), you have a one in three chance that the mutation will result in a different amino acid being expressed. This is because for most amino acids there exist three different codons that all encode for that one acid. If you get a different amino acid, there is still a good chance that no change in protein function will result, because there are really only four different types of amino acids (there are 20 different molecules, but only 4 different behaviors). This means you only have a one in five chance that a different amino acid being expressed will result in a different protein conformation. Multiply these together, and any mutation only has a one in fifteen chance of actually affecting the function of a protein. This means that that 94% of all mutations have no effect whatsoever.

We can even take nucleotides and how they are all arranged in a specific pattern and to change that would ruin the nucleotide in whatever function it carries.

No natural process ruins nucleotides. When a mutation takes place, it is because of a replication error that results in a different nucleotide being placed on the copy DNA molecule from what was on the original. This results in a different sequence, which, as I've explained above, will have no effect 94% of the time.

The nucleotides themselves are the same everywhere. It is the sequence that encodes the information necessary to produce living organisms.

This is tautological and we are once again back to the assumption of evolution and all the assumed mechanisms that lead it.

Do you even know anything about genetic drift? Genetic drift is the reason Armenians tend to have larger eyes than Native Americans. All it means that bottlenecked populations will pass on alleles in different frequencies (the frequency of the alleles responsible for larger eyes are more prevalent in the Armenian population than in the Native American population). Arguing against this principle is sheer idiocy. It is the way we breed animals and plants for food consumption and for pets. It is the basis for genetic variation. You can't argue that it doesn't take place. It is very easily observed.