Macroevolution: Its all around us...

quote:

---

The random re-ordering of the genetic code cannot produce New Information. Look in the genetic stucture of a living organism we see order.

---

Maybe if you actually paid attention to the post... we weren't TALKING about random re-ordering. We were talking about DUPLICATION. Jesus-tap-dancing Christ, what a complete dodge of the question!By the way, if you think that evolution is 100% randomness, you're wrong. There are random mutations, and natural selection weeds through it, cutting out the bad stuff, and keeping the good stuff. Don't pretend you don't know that.

quote:

---

And the problem gets even more complex than this and I know none of you can explain this because no one on earth has yet. It has to do with the Human genome. If you can remember the excitment surrounding the Human genome back in 2000 and 2001 yet the project was considered largly surprising as the genome revealed more problems than solutions. Humans were estimated as having as many as 140,000 genes yet they reported that we only had about 35,000. The problem is that the vastly lower number of genes means that the human genome is a lot more complicated than thought. And how could only around 35,000 genes direct the production of the hundreds of thousands of components that together make up the human body.
And now, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium has further revised the estimated number of genes downward to fewer than 25,000. As one researcher put it, the paucity if genes in humans continues to 'blow our socks off' it seems like an awfully short list to account for the biological properties of a human being, he said.
One commentator in the journal Nature acknowledged that we have a log way to go yet'to understand how all the parts revealed by the genome sequence work together to make life.'Nature, 21 October 2004, pp.915-916, 927-945. The Scientist, <Page Not Found>, 22 October 2004.

---

...and this is relevant how? We're talking about NEW information.

First off your going to have to give me the details of these examples as I don't have these resources. Nor do I want to go searching around the U of O science library for these. Your going to have to show the work to me or provide an easier way of looking at it if you wish me to respond. It is just to vague for me to make a qualified response. As you read in the quote of mine that you copied you are going to have to give me more details and strait forward evidence. Sorry.

Oops! "My bad" as you Yanks would say . Sorry mate.

quote:

---

Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.

​

Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.

---

(increased genetic variety in a population)

quote:

---

Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.

---

(increased genetic material)

quote:

---

Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.

​

Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471

---

(novel genetic material)

quote:

---

Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.

---

(novel genetically-regulated abilities)Got a response to the stuff posted by RAZD?

Give me a break you gave no thought or time to my statement whatsoever. Please take your time and think about what I wrote instead of what you just atomatically see. Duplication or what you're reffering to, "copying mistakes" to produce a change in a specific part of the code. This does not provide an order that makes sense according to our genetic language, which is how you determine what true Information is from randomness. The environment can have an imapct on which organisms survive, but are you suggesting that it has an effect on the mutation to provide a beneficial one. And this has everything to do with this dicussion. In that the Human Genome Project has shown us that human genes are alot more complicated and intricate than we thought and that the order of the genes is complexing in how so few genes could produce such complex systems like cilia.

quote:

---

Give me a break you gave no thought or time to my statement whatsoever. Please take your time and think about what I wrote instead of what you just atomatically see. Duplication or what you're reffering to, "copying mistakes" to produce a change in a specific part of the code. This does not provide an order that makes sense according to our genetic language, which is how you determine what true Information is from randomness.

---

Duplication adds information. How random is it if it copies itself - IE, THE CAAT SAT ON THE MAT.The A could later "mutate" to the more coherent THE CHAT SAT ON THE MAT, if you prefer.

quote:

---

The environment can have an imapct on which organisms survive, but are you suggesting that it has an effect on the mutation to provide a beneficial one.

---

Nope, but it certainly has an impact on which mutations survive

Like I said I don't have these texts and I can't read them. Sorry Not yet I'll read them.

We'll see how big of a problem this particular example is... Partially winged, wingless or just missing some of the necessary anatomy for flight; this just shows speciation and how some genes were lost resulting in a deformed mutant hardly genetically advancing evolution. Again loss of information. Interesting...is this article for or against evolution. I'm assuming they are reffering to the chart which does nothing but show(very poorly) what needs to happen on the genetic level and what species they turn into. Unfortunately they offer no physical proof that the genes for wings were entirely lost or any specific genetic proof or genetic analysis from one specimen to another that the gene or genes was/were gained. "pathways" is this suggesting that the gene somehow turned regressive(I don't think it is). In which case this would not provide evidence it would just suggest that the gene just remained hidden(repressed) until finally by chance it came back out. Unfortunately the wings are non-functional. And unfortunately this kind of role has not gone unrecognized. Animals with extra body parts are documented all the time even teeth and hair are found in tumors. And unfortunately all of these turnout to be non-functional extra body parts. The gene that controlled the amount of body parts was simply lost or mutated. I had a friend with six toes and he could not move his extra toe by itself. Unfortunately this is not a very good example. What it needs is to show a direct lineage of insects specimen to specimen along with genetic analysis to show the gain and loss of this gene or genes which it does not do.This message has been edited by quig23, 05-14-2005 06:09 AM

As you can see "I" don't leave information undefined I explain it and many creation scientists I know try to explain this if the audience is confused. Given there are going to be creationists out there who aren't going to understand information science and just say it based on mimesis. Like I said information is a coded sequence which shows order meaningful purpose. Random genetic mutations can't produce that the odds are astronomical making it impossible, but evolutionists say it is. With this reason I could say that my soccer team is down 1000 to 1 with 1 second to go left in a game. It is pretty obvious at this point that a comeback is surely impossible. But I could say there is a possibility that I could somehow develop incredible mutant speed and steal the ball in a microsecond everytime it is tipped off from half field, shoot the ball at the speed of light into the goal from half field and repeat that 1000 times again and again and that possibility we still have a chance of winning the game. Those are similar to the possibilities and logical jumps of evolution and that is excluding origins. This is an interesting example. Please give me more information on this. please elaborate more on this and explain how it works better. I've done a similar yeast experiment in my biochemistry lab class and this is not proof for evolution. In this case I am not interested in bacterial or gene duplication which obviously happens rather I am interterested in mutations that advance a stucture(ie giving it new information) and in the upper case fusions that produce a more advanced structure.sorry I give no elaboration, but your going to gave to provide a little more info first I'll take a look at the link if that contains the upper examples of mutations and fusions, but that's all I'm looking for.This message has been edited by quig23, 05-14-2005 05:29 AM

OK Quig,If you are really here to try and broaden your perspective on these matters you are going to have to do two things.First, read a bit more about the principles of genetics so you can begin to grasp the clearly excellent examples of evolution that have been provided.Second, find a way to reduce your emotional attachment to all the bunk you have been hearing from creation scientists.Otherwise, you aren't learning anything and the rest of us will feel we are wasting our time trying to explain something that you are predisposed to deny, rather than trying to conprehend with an open mind. Apparently you a frequent member of this audience. I explained the enzyme example about as simply as it can be done.
If you can't grasp it, I will make one more attempt, based on your misunderstanding of the previous explanation. Here is where the grammatical analogy to genetics breaks down.
In a transcibed section of the genome, *everything* is transcribed into RNA and subsequently translated into protein.
There may be some post-transcription processing of the RNA to excise portions of it in some cases, but the point is this:
The genetic sentence ALWAYS has some meaning as long as it results in a protein. It doesn't need rules of syntax to make sense like a sentence does.
Any change that occurs at the genetic level *can* result in a change in an amino acid in the protein that *can* alter functional aspects of the protein.So just because a random change in a sentence reduces it to gibberish, this does not happen on the genome.
The genome still makes 'sense' - just a different sense in some cases. I say 'some' cases because not all point mutations result in changes in amino acids.
This is the 'degeneracy' of the genetic code - there are various base triplets that code for each amino acid, not just one.You apprently need to carefully read a very basic textbook on how the genetic code works.
You sound as if you are way out of your depth at this point.
I am not going to even *try* to tackle evolution of resistance for you if you can't grasp the basics. You should be. That is one of the primary ways a genome 'grows' and accumulates new information.
But then you seem to have decided 'a priori' that the latter is not possible. Are you inventing your own terminology now? "upper case fusions" !?
First off, your use of the terms more or less 'advanced' is inadvisable and inherently teleological. Evolution has no predisposition to 'advance' anything.
It is a very subjective point of view on your part and typically creationist. Why should we bother when you apparently haven't understood anything anyone has said up to this point ?Go and read something *factual* about how genetics work and then come back to this discussion.

thus according to you every time wings are lost of deformed or partially formed information is lost.you get a "bye" on the first loss of wings event so that you have a base point to argue from: species {A} with wings mutated and lost information and became species {B} without wings.(Note that the first insects were not winged, so the development of wings would have to originally been a loss of information before the phasmids became speciated from their ancestor insects. I give you a "bye" on that event too, seeing as it occured before phasmids existed) For. You may be confused about what evolution is and isn't. Evolution is change in species over time, and these phasmids demonstrate change and change and change. That some changes reverse the direction of previous changes is not a concern to evolution, because the conditions that select the {changes} has also *changed* -- however this is a side issue to your claim that all mutations result in a loss in information. please stay on topic. The chart is designed to show the change in species over time, based on the genetic information, it does this very well, and has no need to demonstrate what "needs to happen" -- only what did happen. Again, this is a side issue: please stay on topic. Your claim is that every mutation is always a loss of information, and this is not related to the necessity of whole genes being lost, but to each individual mutation event. Please do not conflate one argument with another and stay on topic. Seeing as this involves species wide genetics rather than individuals the issue of {dominant\regressive} genes is another side issue not related to the topic: please stay on topic. The topic is your claim that every mutation is a loss of information. Again we are not talking about genes but mutations. Mutations that result, according to you, only in the loss of information.Let me spell it out for you, seeing as you seem to be unclear on the concept:(1) species {A} with wings mutated and lost information and became species {B} without wings (remember this from above?)(2) species {B} without wings mutated and lost information and became species {C} with wings.How can it come "back out" without regaining the information on how to get it "back out" -- the information was "lost" according to your original concept and your concept rejects any gain in information, including the regaining of lost information in any way shape or form. And to make matters worse it doesn't stop there in the case specifically extracted from the total set:(3) species {C} with wings mutated and lost information and became species {D}, Lopaphus parakensis, without wings.Please explain how species {D} has less information than species {B} while at the same time species {C} has less information than species {A}, then please explain how species {C} has less information than species {B} when species {B} lost information from species {A}; repeat for species {D} relative to B} ... and {C} ... and {A}.Keep the discussion to specific mutation event loss of information. Again this is off topic. It is irrelevant what the result of the mutation is if every mutation results in a loss in information (it is also wrong: I have seen walking sticks fly (and due to the limitations on my observations within the time frame, these would have to be current species that currently fly )). Please stick to the topic (or start another one on the value of "extra" body parts). When in doubt invoke the god of the gaps argument, especially after conflating one argument with another to hide the fact that you are equivocating on your original position. Please stay on topic.Let me reiterate: your position is that every mutation is a loss in information. This does not have anything to do with the gain or loss of whole genes, so conflating those is equivocating on your first position.You have utterly failed to show how loss of information in every mutation can explain this situation. I bet it went with him where-ever he went ... but seriously, anecdotal 'evidence' is of limited value: I had a friend with six toes and she could move all of them independently. I also know of a person with 4 toes. Does this mean that both 6 and 4 are a loss of information from the 'normal' value of 5? .... but again, let's please stick to the topic at hand and the specific scientifically substantiated evidence of the phasmids, and not conflate the argument with unsubstantiated personal anecdotes.Examples of loss of information in {a\some} instances does not validate the claim that mutation is always a loss of information and thus is irrelvant to the topic: please stay on topic. NOTE - failure to address this issue specifically with regard to mutational loss of information at every step from {A} to {B} to {C} to {D} means that you cannot honestly continue to claim that mutation is always a loss of informationEnjoy.

Hey Raz,
I think we are pissing in the wind here.
This example is way over his head.
We shouldn't have to revert to first principles to have a discussion here, as Alasdair and I have had to do for Quig with a far more simple genetic example.Before we spend any more time trying to explain things to Quig, I think we need to require some evidence that :1. he has read enough of the basics to understand the nuts and bolts of the arguments.2. that he is returning with an open, inquisitive mind in order to broaden his understanding.The first step toward increased understanding is recognition of one's own ignorance and we haven't seen any evidence of that in Quig yet, so I submit that we can't let him bog down the thread by demanding tedious explanations of first principles that are completely redundant for the rest of us.Admin: Am I out of line here ?

As I can see, you do not define information. I give you credit for trying, but you failed. OK, that's useless, since we don't have useful definitions for "order", "meaningful", or "purpose".What you need to supply is an operational definition, a recipe if you will, that allows anyone to apply that definition (and only that definition) to an arbitrary section of DNA and produce a number indicating the amount of information in that DNA. Until you've supplied that your "definition" is a useless fairy story. Please show your calculations of the amount of information in a genome of your choice before and after a mutation of your choice.

Your analogy isn't adequate because if enclosed in the right markers any pattern of the DNA is "meaningful" -- guessing at what you might mean. That is, it produces a protein through the transcription mechanism.Now some proteins might not be good for much and some will be. Is it the "good for something" that you mean by "meaningful". Some are.Duplicating an entire sequence might produce twice as much of an existing protein -- this has effects on the organism (some of the time). Some of those effects maybe harmful, some neutral and some maybe beneficial. Is beneficial what you mean by "meaningful"? Some are.Those which are actually harmful will be weeded out by selection. Leaving us with a increase in "meaningful" "information".Remember, the DNA code is not a language in which only some orders of letters produce real output. Any order within the gene produces real output.

I prefer the much simpler fact that his argument is refuted unless and until he can actually show a loss of information at each stage rather than just make a bald claim.JonF's point is similar in this approach.

Up above you refused the stick insect example because you didn't get the exact genetics. Now you refuse an example because you need something called an "advanced structure". This begins to seem a lot like galloping goalposts.We are talking, at this point, about "information" (which you have not yet supplied a useful definition for) which you told us was some pattern in the genetic code. Let's stick with that until we figure out whether it can be increased or not. This is a moderately complicated topic it will be better to take one step at a time.