Scientists Discover A Sixth Base of DNA

a reply to: Elementalist

I thought science only made statements when proof was definite. Would you agree the lack of witness and evidence of evolution taking place the past decades (species morphing/evolving) is uncountable?

Well we can use fast breeding creatures to show small scale changes in a species over a relatively short period of time, and I think that given enough time small changes can turn into large changes. Having designed evolutionary algorithms myself I'm certain that the mechanism we call survival of the fittest can allow a species to evolve over time. In the real world it takes a very long time for small changes to build up into large changes so it's hard to prove it's actually happening, but in simulations it can be sped up. The point I was making in my last post is that I don't think survival of the fittest is enough by itself to explain the way evolution seems to work in the real world. This research adds another dimension to the way our DNA evolves and can explain why evolution can design such complex creatures so efficiently without doing it blindly.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I agree survival is the fittest is a bit delusional. .

Ive seen unhealthy people beat the snot out of "fitter" people. What is it to be more fit? Working jobs thst do not make your body fit then taking no time to get to a gym and be fit. . Does that mean those people have bad genes now?

If the universe is based on yhis theory of survivAL of the fitness... how come plants share nutrients and such to make a eachother healthy and grow, as an interconnected network?

Or does this theory only work for the animals/creature, thst which is powered by plants?

Another example; these scientists who do not work out and get fit or buff... but walk around and lift a total of 30 lbs maybe once a week, spend their time thinking about survival of the fittest and evolution; isn't thst counter productive to their genes then?

Big fancy words and concepts do not matter to evolution and being fit? They are idelogies while nature and life continue forward in time.

So it's a bit strange to me this whole evolution thing, but I'm always open. Hence, I will decide and exercise more thouhht when fit scientists actually show proof.

Review my piece on the plant network if the universe is based on evolution and survival of fittest. . They were here first.

a reply to: swanne

Very cool find, and the implications could be enormous. I think the biggest is that we should remember we don't know nearly as much as we think we know. Just when scientists think they have something all figured out, there is something new discovered, that tosses the old assumptions out the window.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: swanne

Very cool find, and the implications could be enormous. I think the biggest is that we should remember we don't know nearly as much as we think we know.

Actually DNA changing over a life time.. Parents passing down DNA of their memory.. Wouldn't this explain Carl Jung's "Collective Unconscious."

And this brings me back to talking about dreaming. Dreaming is going into the unconscious. What if you can learn something from your own DNA/RNA by sleeping and going into our memory as a species?? What if your DNA could then be modified as an outward expression of your "soul"

So maybe we know everything we thought we didn't know, depending on how far back our particular bloodline seems to come from.

originally posted by: KnightLight

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: swanne

Very cool find, and the implications could be enormous. I think the biggest is that we should remember we don't know nearly as much as we think we know.

Actually DNA changing over a life time.. Parents passing down DNA of their memory.. Wouldn't this explain Carl Jung's "Collective Unconscious."

I'd call it more of a probability for some sort of genetic memory, but yes, it does change. I remember reading about a study that showed mothers take on bits of the DNA of their children during pregnancy. Interesting, that!

originally posted by: KnightLight
And this brings me back to talking about dreaming. Dreaming is going into the unconscious. What if you can learn something from your own DNA/RNA by sleeping and going into our memory as a species?? What if your DNA could then be modified as an outward expression of your "soul"

So maybe we know everything we thought we didn't know, depending on how far back our particular bloodline seems to come from.

Dreams as DNA modification? Even as learning would be pretty cool! If there is genetic memory,a nd I believe there is, I could see that being tapped in a dream.

Why do I believe there is? Interesting thing. Some years back, well, decades, I was watching this show on the Serengeti. Mostly about the wildlife, and I have always enjoyed that type of show. At the end, the host is stationed at these large rocks, which are covered in small depressions, from many, many years of people banging small rocks onto them, to make musical notes. Really cool stuff. The weird part was, when he sounded a few notes with a small round rock, across some of the depressions, I recognized the sounds. They were so familiar, like a song I knew but had forgotten. I am certain I never saw anything on those musical rocks before, but I knew that sound. What could explain that but genetic memory?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder


I thought one of the most supportive arguments against evolution (which doesn't necessarily have an either/or black/white this or that alternative that is creationism...although I believe in the latter people should stop assuming if one doesmt buy evolution theory, then they must be creationists-there's a myriad of other possibilities so don't refuse to consider other possibilities because you're one of those in a box wrongly perpetuating the whole "it's either A or B" thing and ignoring C D E?? And last note- I'm not addressing you Chaotic Order, I know u r more than intelligent enough to understand this simple fact it just so happened that I replied to yours because of the mention of quickly reproducing species and the people I'm addressing are just those who are stuck thinking if one argues against evolution, he/she must support creationism or vice versa). anyway back to what I was saying I thought one of the most compelling arguments against evolution is that we have species of organisms animals etc mostly bacteria for example which can reproduce new generations in just a matter of minutes or seconds and yet no matter how much stimulus is put in from the outside of an experiment we can watch tens hundreds thousands of generations come about yet never once in the history of evolutionary experimentation has one species ever yielded a new species not even simple amoeba or bacteria when if evolution were right we'd expect stimuli to coax a new more adapted species to manifest. Remember, adaptations aren't evolution like ape to man. finally like the corny argument goes they say no way will a cat ever become a whale or you can breed all the horses you want they will never become crocodiles even if you breed them for millions of years in the water. I admit that I am absolutely lousy at one thing only and that is science, as I'm just not interested by it; therefore, if I am wrong about no bacteria or amoeba ever yielding new species, please correct me. But I believe that is the case as of now.

I would like to add that babies, as they are still growing in the womb, are going through epigenetic changes (methylation of DNA etc.) that will prepare them for the environment they will face later in life. As the mother is starved, the child will be better suited to face starvation, but if the child then faces an environment with a lot of food the child has an higher chance of obesity (mismatch). These epigenetic changes in DNA are capable to be passed through on further generations.

Also, im not sure how the discovery of a sixth base of DNA, exciting as it is, has anything to do with evolution and methylation, perhaps I missed something, would anyone care to explain?

a reply to: swanne

i has to change or else evolution is impossible, thought they knew this already, kind of obvious

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat
a reply to: ChaoticOrder


I thought one of the most supportive arguments against evolution (which doesn't necessarily have an either/or black/white this or that alternative that is creationism...although I believe in the latter people should stop assuming if one doesmt buy evolution theory, then they must be creationists-there's a myriad of other possibilities so don't refuse to consider other possibilities because you're one of those in a box wrongly perpetuating the whole "it's either A or B" thing and ignoring C D E??

In defense of people typicslly assuming that an anti-evolution stance is based on creationism, 99% of posters who do not believe in modern evolutionary synthesis are creationists. At least in my experience on ats. There are very few who have other objectiins and i have never seen alternative C,D or E presented. It would be very refreshing to see that sort of outside the box thinking but it has yet to present itself. Dont get me wrong, nobody should be assuming anything and we should all be willing to take the time to discern the actual motivations behind denial of evolutionary theory prior to jumping the gun. Im simply explaining why it is so prevalent based on my own observations.

And last note- I'm not addressing you Chaotic Order, I know u r more than intelligent enough to understand this simple fact it just so happened that I replied to yours because of the mention of quickly reproducing species and the people I'm addressing are just those who are stuck thinking if one argues against evolution, he/she must support creationism or vice versa). anyway back to what I was saying I thought one of the most compelling arguments against evolution is that we have species of organisms animals etc mostly bacteria for example which can reproduce new generations in just a matter of minutes or seconds and yet no matter how much stimulus is put in from the outside of an experiment we can watch tens hundreds thousands of generations come about yet never once in the history of evolutionary experimentation has one species ever yielded a new species not even simple amoeba or bacteria when if evolution were right we'd expect stimuli to coax a new more adapted species to manifest. Remember, adaptations aren't evolution like ape to man. finally like the corny argument goes they say no way will a cat ever become a whale or you can breed all the horses you want they will never become crocodiles even if you breed them for millions of years in the water. I admit that I am absolutely lousy at one thing only and that is science, as I'm just not interested by it; therefore, if I am wrong about no bacteria or amoeba ever yielding new species, please correct me. But I believe that is the case as of now.

The Lenski experiment demonstrates just such a thing occuring with bacterium. myxo.css.msu.edu...
Additionally, while some single celled organisms can reproduce in tens of minutes, viruses can synthesize its genome and body(both of which are much smaller than bacteriums) simultaneously and very quickly on the order of reproducing several times per minute and as anyone looming at various viral infections will note, tge adaptstiins and evolution of viruses is well documented making some of them incredibly difficult to treat from ome day to the next in some cases.

We've always known that the genome isn't static. I mean it is to a certain point, but it's always undergoing damage. So I'm not sure that this is a six base or just a base that had been methylated, or degraded by some other means to produce a base that would end up causing a mis-read or something like that.

As for the evolution thing ( not sure how that was brought up) nonetheless microevolution is easily observed, the kicker is macro evolution. We can't observe that so if you want to be scientific then you can't really give much merit to it until it can be observed then repeated to the nth degree.

a reply to: Elementalist

Well... The thing is, evolution is not the survival of the fittest - it is the survival of the most adapted to a given environment.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Elementalist

Well... The thing is, evolution is not the survival of the fittest - it is the survival of the most adapted to a given environment.

Well sir, the thing is no one has any true answers and can't catalogue current evolution progress.

How convenience.

Don't regurgitate the same thing like religious followers most science followers.mock; show the current progress instead of pushing theories as fact.

It's that simple, and all I'm asking for. If you push thus theory in school education to our youth, then you better as hell back it up.

Wouldn't you agree?

a reply to: Elementalist

After the dutch hunger winter, many pregnant women were exposed to famine. The babies had changes in the folding of the DNA, expressing and silencing certain genes; which made them more adaptable to periods of starvation (these changes are able to pass through generations); unfortunately for them after the war there were no periods of starvation and these people had a higher chance of diabetes and similar diseases. You could say this is a form of evolution?

a reply to: swanne

Like you said. Cool stuff. My favourite bit:

Epigenetics, the study of chemical reactions that guide genetic expression in living beings, reveals traits can sometimes be passed from parent to offspring without modifying genetic instructions.

"The human genome is not static. It contains dynamic DNA modifications that carry key inheritable epigenetic information passed among generations of cells," said Chuan He of the University of Chicago.

Repeat one hundred times.

Great find. F&S&

a reply to: DeusImperator

Sorry friend, "could" is not a fact.

Yet we use could, would, should and theories as factual reality... when there is no fact.

Some circles call that a delusion.

We can't be pushing ideologies around as facts. Life doesn't work that way. Evidence, proof is what science always claims. .

Again, there is no cataloging of evolution taking place. Which is strange from all the belief and followers this theory has.

I digress..

originally posted by: Elementalist
a reply to: DeusImperator

We can't be pushing ideologies around as facts. Life doesn't work that way. Evidence, proof is what science always claims.

Science and the scientific method are based entirely on the evidence that supports Theories and hypothesis. Something can't be called a Scientific Theory without havinga well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Again, there is no cataloging of evolution taking place. Which is strange from all the belief and followers this theory has.

Just for clarifications sake, what exactly are you looking for in regards to cataloguing aspects of the theory?

originally posted by: swanne
In your opinion, what are the implications of this discovery of a sixth base of DNA?

Being that ATS is full of genetic experts?

This sixth Dna base isn't actually a new discovery if Anybody has any actual intelligence whatsoever then you will understand that the saying that Men were made from Clay ie Oragnic Material..Angels made from Light ie spiritual enhancement and Djinn made from Fire
Fire is the foundation of this sixth Dna Base the Unseen spectrum to Us is Reality just unknown to us as we are not Ehanced to our maximum tolerable degree. ~kos

a reply to: Elementalist

Changing human DNA to become more adaptable to the environment is not considered evolution? Then what is in your opinion? Cataloging evolution is very hard because it takes thousands to million years to accumulate all the tiny genetic mutations into differences that are easy to recognise.
But if you really want a 'cataloging of evolution' here you go:

www.americanscientist.org...

These fish have evolved to gain immunity to toxic substances. classic example of natural selection. Mutated fish with a change in DNA that lets them survive the toxic river, the others die.

a reply to: peter vlar

In defense of people typicslly assuming that an anti-evolution stance is based on creationism, 99% of posters who do not believe in modern evolutionary synthesis are creationists.

Interesting stat, that. Is it hyperbole, or fact?

I don't subscribe to the MES, but completely adhere to an evolutionary view. Unfortunately I'm labeled a creationist all the time for this.

The MES is an antiquated interpretation of how evolution works. We've come a very long way since its inception and its central premise that genetic mutation and natural selection are mostly enough to explain away everything we see. It's bothersome that this continues to be the prevailing view in light of what the last 10 years of research has uncovered.