Evolution problem

[Lithp]

And since they reproduce asexually, all mutations are passed on. Plus changes due to exchanging DNA amongst each other.

[m52nickerson]

Not mention that early cells might have had billions of base pairs in their DNA.  Number of base pairs is not a measure of complexity.  Most DNA does not code for anything.  Over time those base pairs may have become genes and some may have been lost.

[Quasirodent]

More base pairs meaning more mutations per organism.  Each individual can be host to more than one mutation and pass them all on as long as they don't impair its survival.

Here's a question:  If two individual organisms with higher than usual mutation rates were to exchange their genes, would that spur even more new mutations in their offspring?

[Lithp]

Only if the high mutation rate is itself caused by a mutation. For instance, a mutation that affects how DNA replication occurs. In the grand scheme of things, it's probably an irrelevent occurance. If it's not caused by a mutation, it is just a coincidence, which means it cannot be inherited. It could be environmental, though.

[Shane for Wax]

Does this new article on mitosis help at all?
This one on the ribosome might help too

Bokov and Steinberg propose that the seeming complexity of the ribosome is something of a mirage. Its evolution was actually pretty simple. It evolved from a tiny piece of RNA, perhaps only 110 nucleotides long. At first, this molecule didn't build proteins; it may have carried out some kind of reaction on other RNA molecules in RNA-based cells. Then mutations accidentally duplicated the fragment, building new units that could fold back on the older units. This protoribosome may have been able to add random building blocks together. New layers of loops evolved, making the ribosome more precise, able to build specific proteins when it read specific pieces of RNA. Newer loops made the ribosome even more stable and thus able to crank out proteins even faster. The last major step in the evolution of the ribosome was the addition of its proteins.

[Star Cluster]

As some have suggested, I think one big mistake is looking at this as though evolution has been occurring at a steady rate.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  One significant event that occurred was the Cambrian Explosion, which began around 580 million years ago.  At first it was thought that only simple, single celled creatures were present prior to this occurrence, but evidence now indicates that there were some more complex animals present prior to 580 million years.  However, the diversity of life beginning at about that time was so markedly extreme, that even Darwin thought it was the single most compelling argument against his theory of evolution to the point that he devoted a chapter to it in his book The Origin of Species.  The causes behind the explosion have not been completely discovered, but a couple of causes thought to have caused it are a significant increase in oxygen levels in the atmosphere and an increase of calcium in seawater.  Regardless, a significant and rapid diversity of life occurred.  You can read more about it here.

We must also take into account that there have been several mass extinction events in Earth's history that severely curtailed life, one as recently as 65 million years ago.  There have been bottlenecks caused by these events that on occasion nearly wiped out all life on earth.  Yet life persisted and flourished.

To me, saying there simply hasn't been enough time for mankind to evolve from a specific early ancestor is to totally ignore what we do know about Earth's history.  This is nothing more than misdirection and grandstanding by creationists who so desperately want (and need) their little book of goofy explanations to be true.

[Jack Bauer]

1. This 'problem' does not mean that evolution is not occurring.

2. Even if evolution was, somehow, proved to be 'false', it does not necessarily follow that creationism is true.

3. In any case, evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe - string theory has proved that space/time was started by Fluffy the Cosmic Kitten, though there is still debate as to whether the universe was coughed up as a furball or just popped out of the poop chute. This has been the subject of a number of debates and several fist fights at CalTec.

[Yla]

string theory has proved that space/time was started by Fluffy the Cosmic Kitten, though there is still debate as to whether the universe was coughed up as a furball or just popped out of the poop chute. This has been the subject of a number of debates and several fist fights at CalTec.

Not sure about what you're trying to communicate here.

[Jack Bauer]

string theory has proved that space/time was started by Fluffy the Cosmic Kitten, though there is still debate as to whether the universe was coughed up as a furball or just popped out of the poop chute. This has been the subject of a number of debates and several fist fights at CalTec.

Not sure about what you're trying to communicate here.

The Truth!

The Inescapable Truth!

Mind you, it could have been the Invisible Pink Unicorn...

Or the FSM....

Or the First Sith.

[DNAunion]

One person mentioned whole genome duplication.  I can't remember if it is just one or two that would be involved in our lineage (fish had one or two more than our vertebrate lineage did).

Gene duplications and segmental duplications are also common occurrences. 

And about 50% of the human genome consists of repetitive sequences, a lot by "jumping" genes.

Finally let's not forget that studies have found that only about 5% of the human genome is under evolutionary functional constraint.  The highest estimate (not from an actual experiment) I've seen is that that 10% to 15% of the human genome is functional in a way that sequence matters.  So a bunch of duplicated garbage does not really have to be accounted for.