Does Molecular Genetics Support Evolution?

[Anonymous No.1953216]

A friend of mine was insisting that current molecular genetics data do not support the concept of evolution.

I'm not well-read in this area but from my understanding, it most certainly does. Even though molecular clock data are not too accurate, I believe they support the concept.

Any comments?

>inb4 creationists vs. atheists

[Anonymous No.1953221]

That inb4 won't save you. Our current data on molecular genetics does support evolution, simply because evolution is true.
inb4 retarded and analpained creationist reply

[Anonymous No.1953223]

>>1953221
Your answer didn't say anything at all.

I was asking for specific examples of molecular data supporting evolution, not just "it does because it is true herr"

[Anonymous No.1953231]

>>1953223
see
>>1953221
>inb4 retarded and analpained creationist reply

[Anonymous No.1953234]

>>1953231
I'm OP and I replied to his lame response.

I'm actually asking for examples. This isn't an attempt to refute evolution - I'm already aware of its existence in the lab and can extrapolate that further.

[Anonymous No.1953236]

lol op thinks /sci/ actually knows wtf they are talking about or read the literature

[Anonymous No.1953237]

>>1953234
>mfw you still don't get it
>oh you silly creationist OP

[Anonymous No.1953243]

>>1953237
What am I not getting?

I'm a MSc student who most definitely is not a creationist. I'm actually ask a *real question* for the first time in the history of /sci/ so that I can look in the right direction and see what my friend was saying.

If you don't understand the question or have something relevant to say then just ignore it or don't allow it to devolve (pun maybe intended) into a lame troll thread.

Thanks for the bump though

[Anonymous No.1953252]

>>1953243
>mfw he's lying through his teeth
>babbyissad.jpg

[Anonymous No.1953265]

>>1953252
>so you have no idea about current molecular genetics methodology or findings, we get it

molecular clocks are difficult to calibrate (eg fungi) but they have been linked to morphological changes which are associated with phylogenetic positions for a variety of organisms including plants, bacteria, and other microbes.

read about that area

[Anonymous No.1953269]

>>1953216
well yes, in fact why don't you go have a BLAST:
http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi

compare nucleotide and amino acid sequences and see for yourself

[Anonymous No.1953270]

>>1953243
I'm thinking that you're just getting samefag trolled but in the end genetics does not really support evolution. It supports the whole idea of stronger/faster/better equipped members of species reproducing more but when we get into the argument of if modern day mammals all decended from one small mammal that lived through the asteroid hit that killed the dinosaurs then there really is no genetic explanation as to why or how modern species are able to have evolved so diversely from one or a few sources other than the argument of random mutations, which might be right but there's fuckall in the way of really conclusive evidence we can show.

I'm not saying it didn't happen that way since it's the most plausible explanation, just that we will never have 100% proof of one way or another.

[Anonymous No.1953288]

>>1953270
The way you speak makes me think that you have no fucking clue what evolution by natural selection is. Please go read "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.1953287]

>>1953269
I know what BLAST is and how is that any help?

>Here is the internet the answer is in there somewhere

[Anonymous No.1953293]

Your friend is a retard.

> specific examples of molecular data supporting evolution
DNA

[Anonymous No.1953296]

>>1953293
Elaborate please.

[Anonymous No.1953299]

>>1953216
Really OP, there's not enough space or time on 4chan to explain this with the level of detail required. Go find some actual scholarly articles.

[Anonymous No.1953303]

>>1953293
He isn't necessarily suggesting creationism or aliens or what not (well, maybe the alien thing).

I think he is just saying the current knowledge base is inconclusive, it isn't really about whether evolution exists or not, but if our molecular informaiton corresponds with it at this point in time.

[Anonymous No.1953307]

>>1953299
Yeah I know but can you give me suggestions as to what area to look into?

I said molecular clock data, give me another.

Getting a decent non-political, non-rabid, calm answer on /sci/ is like pulling fucking teeth

[Anonymous No.1953308]

>>1953303
Seriously, when we compare the difference in DNA between all animals, it forms a nice tree structure. The cool thing is that this tree is /also the same goddamned tree created by taxonomists/. What the hell else do you want?

[Anonymous No.1953310]

>>1953288
>Dawkins
>he actually thinks anything in evolutionary biology is scientifically sound

[Anonymous No.1953320]

>>1953223
google it faggot

[Anonymous No.1953322]

>>1953308
yeah but the tree structure shows an arbitrary "distance" between organisms that can be correlated with morphology, but it doesn't imply ancestry at all

[Anonymous No.1953326]

>>1953216
Your friend is fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.1953323]

>>1953310
Dawkins is awesome, and evolution is scientifically sound.

[Anonymous No.1953328]

>>1953320
/sci/ showing its' ugly truth as per usual.

didn't you know op?

/sci/ is full of highschoolers who just pretend they know things by wikipedia'ing string theory and skimming it.

[Anonymous No.1953334]

>>1953326
Why is his friend a retard? It doesn't sound like he is disputing evolution just commenting on a relatively new research tool and its limits.

[Anonymous No.1953336]

>>1953310
>doenst know that all fields of biology use evolution

[Anonymous No.1953344]

OP here... you guys are all a bunch of faggots who can only argue semantics or emotion.

Thanks for nothing /sci/ fags! Go back to your superficially "deep" highschool mind experiments, evolution-creationism pointless drivel, and wikipedia citations.

[Anonymous No.1953349]

>>1953322
So, you don't think it's entirely plausible, proven even, when we have this evidence:

1- We've observed quote unquote "small scale" evolution in the lab and in nature, including E. Coli mutating into an entirely different strain which consumes an entirely different food source. I'm not even sure if it's proper to refer to it as E. Coli anymore.

2- Evolution by natural selection is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators. It logically follows from the basic laws of physics. The more interesting question is if natural selection can account for the present diversity, not if it happens - it does happen. And the preponderance of evidence is that natural selection is enough to account for modern diversity.

3- The fossil record is consistent with the modern theory of geology, which is consistent with the tree of life from taxonomy, which is consistent with the tree of life from molecular DNA analysis, which is consistent with natural selection as a driving force.

I'm sure there's more evidence, but that's the really good stuff.

[Anonymous No.1953353]

>>1953296
Mitochondrial DNA?

>>1953303
Look, we know evolution happens because it's been directly observed. If fossils aren't enough for you, and all the gene sequencing to piece together family trees of organisms, then the fact that we've directly observed speciation in controlled laboratory settings should. There are hundreds of published instances of *direct observations* of speciation. In some cases, the shift into a new species is even reproducible. In fact, evolution has been directly observed so many times that it's not even worth publishing when you see it in your lab, unless there is something particularly interesting about the way it happened (an unexpected result from a selection pressure or a weird splicing thing or something like that).

[Anonymous No.1953355]

>>1953334
Because molecular genetics most certainly does support evolution. His friend is either a troll, talking out of his ass, or has no idea wtf molecular genetics even is.

\thread

[Anonymous No.1953361]

>>1953334
Because he made a statement that is patently false, and if he'd taken ten seconds with Google he'd have been able to figure it out.

[Anonymous No.1953364]

>>1953355
give examples bro

you guys keep saying it supports it, but i don't think you guys have ever read a single fucking paper saying so

not saying they aren't out there, but you guys are just saying what you believe and not what is actually scientific fact

fossils and laboratory evolution does NOT equal molecular

[Anonymous No.1953369]

>>1953349
Sorry, it should continue "which is consistent with modern astrophysics, which is consistent with general relativity and quantum theory, which is consistent specifically with radioactive dating of half a dozen different isotopes, which have overlap and are consistent with each other"...

[Anonymous No.1953380]

>>1953364
I honestly am not a molecular biologist. I am going off of what Dawkins says, and every other single reputable source of information on modern science. The tree of life of taxonomy is entirely consistent with the tree of life according to molecular DNA analysis. Where is the evidence? Where is the papers? Again, you're the one who wants it. I'd suggest wiki as a good starting point, or google. The wiki page looks decent actually.

[Anonymous No.1953385]

>>1953364
As I understand the term, molecular DNA analysis is simply showing that the trees of life of taxonomy and molecular DNA analysis are entirely consistent. This is true for important genes, and for inactive gene (see genetic drift). I don't know any papers offhand, but I'm pretty sure it's the case. It's been done to death.

[Anonymous No.1953408]

>>1953364
Stop being a faggot.

In the early days of evolutionay theory, evolution kicked all the other theories ass. All intellegcne debate on the "factuality" of evolution has been over for a very very very long time.

The theory of evolution is so old by now that is is fucking trival. It is a scientfic fact, and not disputed in the scientifc community anymore. Only the unedcuated religious faggots "think" that there is an controvery over evolution.

Evolution is used as a tenent in just about every field of biology. It is a pilar of biology itself. On every level of Biology we can see evolution at work, even the molecular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_evolution

[Anonymous No.1953430]

>>1953216
>Does Molecular Genetics Support Evolution?

Yes

\thread

[Anonymous No.1953443]

>>1953364
Do your own homework. It's not that hard. This is like asking a mathematician how addition works, and then asking for citations when he says "carry the one if it's bigger than ten."

> fossils and laboratory evolution does NOT equal molecular
Actually, they do, because we can sequence genetic material from fossils (and have done so many, many times), and observe the molecular mechanisms of evolution at a base pair level in lab experiments.

[Anonymous No.1953468]

>>1953308
/thread

[Anonymous No.1953478]

>>1953443
>Actually, they do, because we can sequence genetic material from fossils (and have done so many, many times), and observe the molecular mechanisms of evolution at a base pair level in lab experiments.
well... compared to the fossil record you tend to overestimate phylogenetic splits in depth of time though

u mad moleculefags?

[Anonymous No.1953479]

Given an average mutation rate for generation one can deduce by DNA comparison how much two species are distant from one another.

Comparing DNA sequences reveals areas that are particularly conserved, that is, have changed very little, due to the vital function that the gene product of this particular sequence plays.

A prime example for this would be ribosomal RNA coding regions, which are used to map relationships between species.
This genetic distance is then graphically reproduced as physical distance in pictures of the tree of life.

Comparison of protein structures also play an important role, an example would be ABC-Transporters, which are found in all domains of life and all contain conserved structures such as the ABC-Motif.

Another example are other molecules such as Bacteriochlorophyll and plant Chlorophyll. Which have evolved from one ancestor to be able to absorb slightly different spectra of light.

[sage No.1953483]

>>1953478
you enjoy making up nonsense?

[Anonymous No.1953508]

well, it makes it doubtful that evolution is the only mechanism for creating the diversity of life. It certainly is the best naturalistic explanation, but does not account comfortably for the speed or change of alleles just by natural selection.

[Anonymous No.1953512]

or, if he means the sturcture of DNA was created with exclusively thermodynamic principles in mind, that is true. Or genetics and heredity are seperate issues discovered earlier.


Evolution is a much narrower theory than most of its fanboys realize.

[Anonymous No.1953526]

>>1953508

Well, there's more mechanisms than just mutation involved.
Horizontal gene transfer, recombination events, viral transfection accelerate evolution considerably.
On the phenotypic side of things one has to consider epigenetic effects, which we are only beginning to understand.

[Anonymous No.1953529]

>>1953483
you sound upset

just wiki it