During the Ninteenth century Charles Darwin Proposed that new species originate by a force of evolution which he termed as Natural selection. With gradual developement in medical biotechnological feilds scientists employed different genetic markers[ from chromosome to human genome] in order to find out answer of age old question" which exact evolutionary forces were shaped the genetic variation in the species population: Darwinian natural selection or Random genetic drift in evolution of modern human?"
Our question is that " is it possible to that random genetic drify might be the sole cause of evolution at the molecular level [at DNA] while accepting the fact darwinism selection theory though can explain many of the observed phenotypic level, can not explain many of the variables as found in abnormalities seen also at least in humans and also at Dorosophilia
Dr. Pranab Kr Bhattacharya
Mr Rupak Bhattacharya
Mrs. Dalihia Mukherjee
Mr. Bholanath Bhattacharya
www.unipathos.com

Moved from "Astronomy" to "General Science."

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Without some sort of selection pressure all you get is random noise in your population. It is clear from studies of genetic algorithms that mutation rates are important--to allow exploration of the fitness landscape. However, if the fitness landscape were flat (ie no selection pressure), mutation alone would not bring about any complex structures.

Besides, it is impossible to completely seperate selection from evolution even at the molecular level, as there is always that ultimate selection test: does the organism live long enough to reproduce? Even absent competition from other organisms, basic chemistry and physics provide selection pressure.

From the linked website:
This is not exactly going to help attract real "world authorities". Nor will mixing religious issues with science, which is the impression I got from the site.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

No, it is not possible.

I would suggest reading Peter Russell's The Global Brain, which fully explains, at least to my satisfaction, the forces that drive evolution.

the best place to ask the questions is on the talk.origins usenet group or sci.bio.evolution

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

What The Lancet says about Darwin's theory on Evolution.? The Lancet is a reputed Biomedical Journal of World, indexed in Index Medicas Bethesda UsA, and also in various with wide Recognition with High Citing Index through out the World. Some Nobel Prize [as for example Nobel Prize In 2005]In medicine and Physiology of Marschall And Warren article on H. Pylori wasPublished first in Lancet.
..."50% of Todays American who a ccording to a public opinion Polls say they belive in or lean towards creationism of Darwin Theory"...."" Darwin Theory of Natural Selection has erronius genetics and His ommision of Punctuated
equlibrium and lateral or horizental transfers of gene fragments, genes and human genomes" Joel. E. Cohen Etal " Evolution of A great Mind: The Life and Work of Darwin-Perspective: The Lancet Vol 367; March 4 P 721-22; 2006
2) ..." I too was fed a stedy diet of darwinism through medical school and beyond, but did not question it untill very recently. Aside from the well established phenomenon of natural selection within species, I have find much of evidences nearly as whismical. In fact the historical trail of Darwin proponents is littered with disproved claims about missing links......" Noel.J. Jhohnson " De bating The intellegent Design" The Lancet Vol367 March25: P984-85;2006
Dr. Pranab Kr Bhattacharya
Mr. Rupak Bhattacharya
Mr. Bholanath Bhattacharya
Mrs. Dalihia Mukherjee
www.unipathos.com

Actually Darwin outlined punctuated equilbrium in his Origin of the Species, he just didn't give it a cool name.

The Lancet also publishes poetry and polemical opinion pieces.
Just because an opinion is expressed in the Lancet doesn't lend it any extra weight.

Grant Hutchison

Human Beings are no doubt animals, but according to me they vary from the rest of the animals Kingdoms in this planet. The differences consist in the reflexive self awereness that makes human beings explicitely self concious agents existing in relationship with circumambient world about which they acquire objective knowledge that are probably lacking in the animals kingdom. The Evolutionary Biology [of Particular Natural selection] however recognises the adaptive changes of skillfull interactions with physical environment but does not allow the self awerness , Knowledge,Self conciousnes Personal identity. It is of course no doubt that human beings are governed by the same autonomic and instinctual mechanism as other animals thus emphasing the bestiality and bovinity, the biological determinism and entrapment genetics but what about the explanation for intellegence, memory,emotion, social behaviour, sense of self hood and capacity for human relationship those are observed? Are these institutional agencies developed in human for Natural selection by product? Of course Some of animals like Chimpanzees, Dolphins show some of these but of course not the Knoweledge, intellegence, memory as my knowledge is. These humanistic behavior are product of complex nueronal net work or of simple evolutionary biological principle is not very well established .Another factor appear to me peculiar that is human morality. These morality appeared in human in millions of years ago that put human in advantegious aimed at ensuring survival of our ancestors who needed to live in small groups at high risk extinction and that indicate unequivocal moral direction. All these agencies present in human are not probably the product of natural selection what I feel.
DR. Pranab Kr Bhattacharya
Mr. Rupak Bhattacharya
Mr. Bholanath Bhattacharya
Mrs. Dalihia Mukherjee
www.unipathos.com

'Morality' is just another survival mechanism. Read Dawkins on altruism in animals - many show this trait. Are they doing it for moral reasons? No, they do so because it confers an advantage and promotes surbvival of the appropriate genes, not necessarily yours, but your family's.
We do the same, but have extended the advantage from merely(for instance) staying in a family group and not mating so that you can assist your parents to bring up another brood of offspring, to complex patterns of behaviour that govern social interaction, and stop us shooting each other over trivial arguments. Breaks down in some societies, sure, but those are disadvantaged, which makes the point.

John

How do you know this?

Have any animals ever told you they are "unconcious agents existing in relationship with circumambient world..."?

I had to laugh at this. Erroneous genetics? Darwin published in 1859... right around when Mendel was doing his pea plant experiments, but CD had no way of knowing. In other words, genetics was utterly unknown to anyone at the time. Instead of being panned, Darwin should be praised for correctly devising how his mysterious method of heritance worked.

Seems to be a common creationist tack to attack Darwin specifically or his ideas, rather than tackle modern evolutionary biology...

__________________
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

The basis of the Darwin theory is that" an individual of same species of the same genus or of even higher groups are derived from a common parents and there fore in however distant and isolated part of the world they are found now they must in course of human generation- who have travelled from some one part to others. The other basis of Darwin theory is Natural selection and Sexual selection. According to this theory of natural selection an intermediate number of intermediate forms must have existed linking together all species in each group by a gradation.but we actually do not see this linking form all arround us. They may be called the " Missing links".We never found the missing links between apes and humans.The other basis is the sexual selection. There are so much beuty through out the nature. so much variables in one species[ say in humans- every individuals has own alle of HLA gene, in Blood group antigens , the face of one human varies from others and so behaviour, intellegence]. So this beauty is not universal. This sexual selection gives the most brilliant colours, elegent patterns and other ornaments to male and some times to both sexes. This sexual selection is not only present in humans but in many animals, birds, even in butterflies. According to Darwin all organic beings being extinct or recent, which have ever lived can be arranged in few great clases and as all within each class have been connectected together by fine gradation, the best and if own collection would be geological, descent being hidden band of connection. So the structure of embryo is more important for classification than that of adult. In two or more groups of animals, however much they differ from each other in structure and in habbit in their adult conditions ,if they pass through a closely similar embryonic stages are descended from one parents
so as per Darwin theory of evolution a human or an animal must have at least some part of their genomic structure closely similar at least in their embryonic life. Darwin theory also says that in the earth life was evolved as a result of chemical evolution in the form of RNA then DNA then Cell and life was not designed at all previously
But today's Gene cloning technology can give us life. Production of Human Embryonic Stem Cell line(ECS) from somatic cell by somatic cell nuclear Transfer(SCNT) method or Somatic cell chromosomal transfer method to produce sucessfull human embryo[ they are able to differentiate in to embryoid bodies or into tertoma cell line and invitro expression of three germ cell layers ectoderm, mesoderm, endoderm as a human foetus do differentiate in the Blasomere]. The First report of such sucess full human cloning was done and reported by Hawang.W.S, Ryu. YJ and Park . J.H in the famous journal Science( Today i came across the article)2004:303:1969-74 Put the Darwin theory of Natural sele ction in to Big Question as I statred in The thread. Today We can produce ECS cell line Bank and can produce a HLAwell mathched organ, Tissue, and a more intellegent foetus and child
So We can Call that instead of Natural selection there was an intellegent design for the origin of Human beings and it was a random genetic drift. Theory of Creationism should come instead of Theory of Natural evolution at least in case of Human beings in perspective of Human Gene cloning tecnology sucessfully done by Hawang et al in 2004. Sucessfull cloning already was possible in case of dolly and in case of A dog also by SCNT.
DR. Pranab Kr Bhattacharya
Mr. Rupak Bhattacharya
Mrs. Dalhia Bhattacharya
Mr. Bholanath Bhattacharya
www.unipathos.com

followed by
Anyone wonder why I stopped reading at that point?

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Which parts are you referring to, specifically?

I could look it up.

Well, yes, where that life already exists and the species originated through evolution. Then we can copy it, with some success anyway.

This does nothing to support your position regarding ID or creationism.

Are you representing a family of 4 people, who all share the same exact opinion on religion? Or is there some reason why we are supposed to be impressed that you have put four names at the bottom of every message?

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

While I disagree with Pranab's position in the debate about evolution, there is no cause for criticizing his intent in his (admittedly over-long) sig-line. Let's try to focus on the arguments, not the people.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

antoniseb said:
Well, there is a possible valid point that each username is supposed to be only one person, and multiple people should each have their own username. Having four names on the sig list suggests there are four people sharing an identity - a violation of board rules.

But that should probably be handled as an email to a moderator to handle offline, not posted in the thread.

pranab said:
What relevance is the results of a public opinion poll of Americans? What bearing does that have on the truth or fallacy of evolution?

So Darwin didn't know all the details about how evolution works that we now know. So what? That's the basis of any science. The fundamental groundwork is subject to later review and correction. The early versions are very unlikely to know all the details.

The interesting thing about missing links... We start with a large gap between point A and point B. "Where's the missing link?" Then someone finds a fossil exactly halfway between points A and B - call it C. "Aha, now there are two missing links![/quote]

There are lots of missing links.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Darwin himself did address the missing link problem. He very eloquently describes geological processes and how they can destroy elements of the fossil record to create gaps. Or fail to form fossils in places, which also creates gaps. We will never be able to fill in those gaps, because there is no record there. It's like the bedroom conversation between Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln. No record exists, so we'll never know what was said. We can make educated guesses, but the actual record was never made, so it's gone.

But guess what? Modern Evolution does not rely purely on the fossil record. The fossil record is only one line of evidence for recreating the paths of descent. The Missing Link problem is far less a problem now that we can sequence the genome than it was in Darwin's day.

You made a declarative statement, offered no justification or evidence for that declaration, and then state it is your opinion. Um, okay. Now would be a good time for evidence, or else we can dismiss your opinion as irrelevant. Just like my opinion is irrelevant. Neither is science, and neither is fact.

This is amusing. Most Creationists argue, "We can't create life from scratch, no matter what scientists do, so that's proof God did it." Now you seem to be arguing the opposite, that because we can create life from scratch, that's proof that it takes a designer to create life. That's ironic and also not logically valid.

Board rules only say that one person isn't allowed to have multiple usernames. There's nothing about one username and multiple people.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

A lot of straw men being set up and knocked down... I am unimpressed...

Quote Aurora"....Are you representing a family of 4 people, who all share the same exact opinion on religion? Or is there some reason why we are supposed to be impressed that you have put four names at the bottom of every message?"
Because I am a very Very busy HistoPathologist/cytopathologist/aswell as Heamatologist of Calcutta city as well as a reputed Teacher for Undergraduate, Post Graduate ( MD, DCP ) Post Doctoral ( Ph.d) Teacher in Pathology of Calcutta university now West Bengal State Health University and I have to guide at present three Post Graduates and one post doctoral thesis, has to take classes also for DMLT,MBBS,MD, DM BPT in each week. More over I am In charge of Cytogenetics Laboratory , In charge of Blood Bank Of my Institute IPGME&R Kolkata, In Chjarge of Ronald Ross Malaria Clinic of Kolkata, and In charge of Post Graduate Studies of Pathology of IPGME&R Kolkata. So I have realy no time at all to Cover the Topics of my postings. As a result I instruct yhree Persons to go through the journals and books and formations of a preliminary opinions of our postings finally I draft and post by myself. Every postings Had been done so far through a thorough search & study from different libraries in calcutta city . More over I trust these persons collections of data, Study, formations of Opinions, intellegence, perciverence and royalty to myself. I Put their names with my postings as a recognitions of their endevour and tribute. These People has enough Degree of university also in science. The Last Name is Of My Old Father of 81 years. I put it because What ever We learnt today in this world Because of my Father and of my Mother. If the Board Does not Permit to put these four names I will not post any thing to this forum
Dr. Pranab Kr Bhattacharya
www.unipathos.com

ToSeek, I stand corrected. There's a rule about not having multiple usernames, and a rule about no third-party posting, but there is not a rule that you can't share a username. Maybe I remember that from somewhere else.

The scientific evidence in favour of creation science against the evolution theories are that-:
1) The universe was created at Big Bang Moment from nothing at Zero moment, Zero point and Zero mass. Big Bang theory( Black Body Radiation recived Nobel Prize in Physics 2006)
2)Creation of Life in this Earth is all on a sudden chance( RNA molecule)
3) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all kinds of living beings from a single organism
4) changes found only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals
5) seperate ancestory for man and apes
6) The evolution can not answer all questions that how life emerged or howconciousness in human brain developed with molecular events or origin of matter in the universe
7) uniqueness of self conception or some like this which is implanted(?) in the foetus in the utero at some time between conception and develpoment
Professor Dr Pranab Kr. Bhattacharya
Rupak Bhattacharya
Dahlia Mukherjee
www.unipathos.com

What is your evidence for this? All evidence points to plenty of mutation and selection. You yourself have several hundred differences when compared to the DNA of your parents. What is this fixed limit, what evidence do you have to show there is a fixed limit, All evidence points towards there not bieng a fixedl imit.

Where is your evidence for this? All evidence points very strongly towards a common ancestry, look at similarity between Human and Chimp DNA.

because we don't know all the answers atthe moment is no reason to stop looking and say 'I don't know so god did it' How is that scientific?
What you propose here is a 'God of the Gaps'

I don't understand this s o can't give a reply

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

This says nothing about Evolution. Evolution is a biological theory describing how life diversified and spread. It says nothing about the beginning of the universe.

The Big Bang is consistent with some religious ideas about the origin of the universe.

We have yet to determine the actual mechanism for the development of life, and what roles RNA and DNA played in early life development. This is an active area of research. There is no evidence that it is "sudden".

Mutation and natural selection have not been shown to be insuffiencient to explain the development and diversification of life. Furthermore, they are mechanisms that are shown to work. If they are shown to be insufficient, science mandates that we investigate new mechanisms, not abdicate to "god did it". That explains nothing. "Intelligent Design" is a fancy way of saying "god did it". It does not explain anything about the mechanism.

The old "kinds" argument. There is no clear delineation of what a "kind" is. Studies of fossil records and DNA combine to show common ancestry between very different "kinds". Mammals are descended from reptiles. So are birds.

Says what evidence? Both fossils and DNA show common ancestry for humans and other large apes, branching in the not-too-distant past from the various extant forms of great apes. Yes, there is separate ancestry after the branching, but that's merely definitions. However, there is plenty of evidence for common ancestry.

Plate tectonics cannot answer all the questions of how the Earth formed in the ancient solar system or the origins of matter in the universe. The Germ Theory of Disease cannot explain how alcoholism affects people or why people are suicidal or how the universe formed. Newtonian Laws of Motion cannot explain the Ideal Gas Law. Just because a theory cannot answer some questions does not mean the theory is wrong. First of all, the question must have some bearing on the topic the theory addresses. Second, incomplete answers are not necessarily incorrect answers. Third, new questions being investigated that do rely on prior theories provide new ways to test and refine those theories. The fact we don't have the answers yet does not negate the theories.

The phrasing of this statement contains implicit assumptions in the nature of being. You appear to be talking about the origins of the seat of the "self", the individual identity that each of us has that allows us to sort ourselves from the rest of the world. The identity and nature of that "self" is still something that is under investigation. Some current theories entwine that sense of self with the development of the part of the brain that sorts sensory input. If so, it is very likely the root of that unique identity is born in the foetus in utero while the brain is developing. The particular manifestation of that "self", though, - what we term awareness - is not formed until after birth. Consciousness and memory appear to be tied to the development of linguistic skills - the brain development, not any form of expression.

"Implanted" is a metaphysical assertion with no connection to physical evidence. We can talk scientifically about development of that self, but "implantation" carries with it the assumption of an implanter, as well as the assumption that there is an identity there prior to and extant from the brain. There simply is no scientific evidence to support that.

Identity develops with the brain. It begins in the early stages of brain development, it deepens with the growth of the brain and development of new cognitive abilities, it is dramatically affected by damage to the brain, and it is gone when the brain ceases to function. That is what our ability to witness it shows.

We think that Darwin's theory of Natural selection faced a fundamental problem that "Evolution typically occured on a time scale that dwarfed a human life span" If realy Natural selection occured in this earth then we would create natural selection in a test tube at molecular level at least in RNA world. The life statred in This earth as RNA then DNA then Mitochondria as a living organism then a cell. A simple Experiment in Laboratory could solve the problem of Natural selection This experiment cpould be designed in this way with the help of recent advances in biotechnology
BY using RNA & peptides instead of whole organism to recreate a evolution in a test tube may be title of project. methodology is that By forcing a RNA cleaving enzyme to evolve DNA cleaving enzyme, as early life evolved evolved through RNA world, where early life molecule performed all the functions. To see the selection/evolution Ribozyme molecules may be introduced with some known/new mutants genomes. Then expose the population to DNA. In the selective step the mutants that happened to have ability to cleave the DNA may thenbe chemically tagged. The tagged Ribozome should be cpoied to cDNAs which thencan be further translated back to RNA. Then many RNAwith mutation should be produced- Such an experiment in laboratory test tube will be then close to darwin's theory of evolution/natural selection
Joes et all so far I remeber did such an experiment in 1993 or in 1992& repoted in " The science". But the experiment did npot work much as moving from RNA cleavage to DNA cleavage- the first step of experiment is a giant step chemically more over some ribosome mutants have limited ability to cut DNA
Professor Pranab Kr Bhattacharya
www.unipathos.com

We think that Darwin's theory of Natural selection faced a fundamental problem that "Evolution typically occured on a time scale that dwarfed a human life span" If really Natural selection occured in this earth then we would create natural selection in a test tube at molecular level at least in RNA world. The life statred in This earth as RNA then DNA then Mitochondria as a living organism then a cell. A simple Experiment in Laboratory could solve the problem of Natural selection This experiment cpould be designed in this way with the help of recent advances in biotechnology
BY using RNA & peptides instead of whole organism to recreate a evolution in a test tube may be title of project. methodology is that By forcing a RNA cleaving enzyme to evolve DNA cleaving enzyme, as early life evolved evolved through RNA world, where early life molecule performed all the functions. To see the selection/evolution Ribozyme molecules may be introduced with some known/new mutants genomes. Then expose the population to DNA. In the selective step the mutants that happened to have ability to cleave the DNA may thenbe chemically tagged. The tagged Ribozome should be cpoied to cDNAs which thencan be further translated back to RNA. Then many RNAwith mutation should be produced- Such an experiment in laboratory test tube will be then close to darwin's theory of evolution/natural selection
Joes et all so far I remeber did such an experiment in 1993 or in 1992& repoted in " The science". But the experiment did npot work much as moving from RNA cleavage to DNA cleavage- the first step of experiment is a giant step chemically more over some ribosome mutants have limited ability to cut DNA
Professor Pranab Kr Bhattacharya
www.unipathos.com

Such experiments may or may not be useful, but are rather immaterial to whether natural selection exists, since we have observed natural selection we already know it exists.

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

Really there isn't a good reason to use biological components at all; we can and do simulate genetics in software. In fact, we have an entire branch of mathematics called Evolutionary Computation where we harness evolution to optimize solutions to problems.

For example, I wrote a wire-routing algorithm for a project at work that works by creating a population of wires (encoding the coordinates into a virtual chromosome), evaluates each one for "fitness" by a combination of length, crossings of other wires, and number of corners. The algorithm "breeds" the individuals using fitness-proportional selection (a simple form of natural selection), generates offspring, toss in a small number of mutations, replace "adults" (in this case based mostly on poor fitness), and repeat for as many generations as I can fit into one second of processing time. End result is usually a pretty good wire placement on my diagram.

Really, there isn't much to debate on whether or not evolution through natural selection can work; we can prove that pretty easily with software simulation. What we cannot prove is that evolution accounts for all aspects of modern biodiversity. However, I put that in the same category as proving that there are no invisible gnomes in my backyard...

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.