social.sokoll.com

Search

Items tagged with: genetics

This genetic mutation makes people feel rested on just 6 hours of sleep | Science | AAAS


#science #genetics #sleep
 

"Darwin is dead, and we have killed him!"

Mathematical challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, with #DavidBerlinski, #StephenMeyer, and #DavidGelernter





Based on new #evidence and #knowledge that functioning #proteins are extremely rare, should #Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?

Has #Darwinism really failed? #PeterRobinson discusses it with David #Berlinski, David #Gelernter, and Stephen #Meyer, who have raised #doubts about Darwin’s #theory in their two books and essay, respectively #TheDeniableDarwin, #DarwinsDoubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).

#Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as #beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of #truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual #universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an #organism #adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of #existing #species but the #emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive #synthesis, which gained #popularity for its #appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century.

Robinson then asks the panel whether Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is contradicted by the explosion of fossil records in the #Cambrian period, when there was a sudden occurrence of many species over the span of approximately seventy million years (Meyer’s noted that the date range for the Cambrian period is actually narrowing). Meyer replies that even #population #genetics, the mathematical branch of Darwinian theory, has not been able to support the explosion of fossil records during the Cambrian period, biologically or geologically.

Robinson than asks about Darwin’s main problem, #molecular #biology, to which Meyer explains, comparing it to digital world, that building a new biological function is similar to building a new #code, which Darwin could not understand in his era. Berlinski does not second this and states that the cell represents very complex machinery, with complexities increasing over time, which is difficult to explain by a theory. Gelernter throws light on this by giving an example of a necklace on which the positioning of different beads can lead to different #permutations and #combinations; it is really tough to choose the best possible combination, more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack. He seconds Meyer’s statement that it was impossible for Darwin to understand that in his era, since the math is…

#science #biology #mathematics #maths #bio #research #evidence #empiricism
 

"Darwin is dead, and we have killed him!"

Mathematical challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, with #DavidBerlinski, #StephenMeyer, and #DavidGelernter





Based on new #evidence and #knowledge that functioning #proteins are extremely rare, should #Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?

Has #Darwinism really failed? #PeterRobinson discusses it with David #Berlinski, David #Gelernter, and Stephen #Meyer, who have raised #doubts about Darwin’s #theory in their two books and essay, respectively #TheDeniableDarwin, #DarwinsDoubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).

#Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as #beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of #truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual #universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an #organism #adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of #existing #species but the #emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive #synthesis, which gained #popularity for its #appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century.

Robinson then asks the panel whether Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is contradicted by the explosion of fossil records in the #Cambrian period, when there was a sudden occurrence of many species over the span of approximately seventy million years (Meyer’s noted that the date range for the Cambrian period is actually narrowing). Meyer replies that even #population #genetics, the mathematical branch of Darwinian theory, has not been able to support the explosion of fossil records during the Cambrian period, biologically or geologically.

Robinson than asks about Darwin’s main problem, #molecular #biology, to which Meyer explains, comparing it to digital world, that building a new biological function is similar to building a new #code, which Darwin could not understand in his era. Berlinski does not second this and states that the cell represents very complex machinery, with complexities increasing over time, which is difficult to explain by a theory. Gelernter throws light on this by giving an example of a necklace on which the positioning of different beads can lead to different #permutations and #combinations; it is really tough to choose the best possible combination, more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack. He seconds Meyer’s statement that it was impossible for Darwin to understand that in his era, since the math is…

#science #biology #mathematics #maths #bio #research #evidence #empiricism
 
Fascinating finding. "Human and cuttlefish limbs develop under the direction of the same genes". To find out more on how our limbs develop and our genetic connections to other animals, definitely read (or watch the documentary) Our Inner Fish by Neil Shubin.
The cuttlefish and its relatives, squid and octopuses, often strike human observers as floating aliens wreathed in sucker-covered limbs — boneless, squirming appendages that would seem to have nothing in common with our own arms and legs.

But hidden under the superficial differences, a new study shows, are some profound similarities: Human and cuttlefish limbs develop under the direction of the same genes. The new study, published on Tuesday in the journal eLife, lends weight to the theory that many animal appendages, from insect wings to fish fins, share a long evolutionary history.
[...]
It’s possible that the common ancestor of cuttlefish, flies and humans had limbs of some sort. Perhaps the animal used these genes to map the coordinates in other three-dimensional body parts, even one located entirely inside the body.

In later generations, animal lineages evolved profound differences. When it comes to limbs, flies and other insects are as different from cephalopods as they are from us. They have hard exoskeletons, with muscles pulling on them from the inside.

But every time a new kind of limb evolved, it seems, animals did not need a new way to tell cells where they were located inside it. Evolution reused the same genetic program over and over again.

“We’re looking at something ancient,” Dr. Cohn said.
#Biology #Nature #Evolution #Genetics #Cephalopods

The New York Times: Cuttlefish Arms Are Not So Different From Yours (By CARL ZIMMER)

 
Fascinating finding. "Human and cuttlefish limbs develop under the direction of the same genes". To find out more on how our limbs develop and our genetic connections to other animals, definitely read (or watch the documentary) Our Inner Fish by Neil Shubin.
The cuttlefish and its relatives, squid and octopuses, often strike human observers as floating aliens wreathed in sucker-covered limbs — boneless, squirming appendages that would seem to have nothing in common with our own arms and legs.

But hidden under the superficial differences, a new study shows, are some profound similarities: Human and cuttlefish limbs develop under the direction of the same genes. The new study, published on Tuesday in the journal eLife, lends weight to the theory that many animal appendages, from insect wings to fish fins, share a long evolutionary history.
[...]
It’s possible that the common ancestor of cuttlefish, flies and humans had limbs of some sort. Perhaps the animal used these genes to map the coordinates in other three-dimensional body parts, even one located entirely inside the body.

In later generations, animal lineages evolved profound differences. When it comes to limbs, flies and other insects are as different from cephalopods as they are from us. They have hard exoskeletons, with muscles pulling on them from the inside.

But every time a new kind of limb evolved, it seems, animals did not need a new way to tell cells where they were located inside it. Evolution reused the same genetic program over and over again.

“We’re looking at something ancient,” Dr. Cohn said.
#Biology #Nature #Evolution #Genetics #Cephalopods

The New York Times: Cuttlefish Arms Are Not So Different From Yours (By CARL ZIMMER)

 
Later posts Earlier posts