Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Impossible evolution of new beneficial proteins
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 61 of 75 (85846)
02-12-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by CreationMan
02-12-2004 12:55 PM


Re: Mice
Biologically speaking that is not evolution. If you start with a mouse and you finish wth a mouse, that's not evolution, that's just mice.
And similarly, when you start with a rat-sized primate and end up with one that argues by means of a keyboard, that's not evolution. They're still just primates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by CreationMan, posted 02-12-2004 12:55 PM CreationMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Brad McFall, posted 02-12-2004 3:19 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 62 of 75 (85849)
02-12-2004 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coragyps
02-12-2004 3:13 PM


Re: Mice
Let Gould's notion of Simpson's inbetween be the relation of sound to my recent comments on junk DNA then... Then voice is excluded as well but being human we can not get rid of the modem and the carbon and the AT&&&&T keeps a taliking when the watch droped by the chimp keeps the ticking of the bagage claim area. Improbable is not impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coragyps, posted 02-12-2004 3:13 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 63 of 75 (85856)
02-12-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by CreationMan
02-12-2004 2:27 PM


Re: Remembering theTopic
There's no difference with regard to powers or privileges between "Member" and "Junior Member". It's actually pretty hokey. When you passs 30 messages you become a "Member".
There have been some discussions about making this more functional and meaningful, but nothing concrete is planned yet.

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by CreationMan, posted 02-12-2004 2:27 PM CreationMan has not replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 75 (85891)
02-12-2004 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Silent H
02-12-2004 1:24 PM


Spontaneously? Who said evolution is spontaneous? That is creation.
Stephen J. Gould, I thought. As in punctuated equilibrium. Not the same as spontaneous generation, but I it sure sounded like a closely related spin-off to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Silent H, posted 02-12-2004 1:24 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 02-12-2004 7:49 PM Skeptick has not replied
 Message 67 by Sylas, posted 02-12-2004 8:05 PM Skeptick has not replied
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 02-13-2004 12:02 AM Skeptick has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 65 of 75 (85906)
02-12-2004 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Skeptick
02-12-2004 6:26 PM


You misunderstand what Gould says. PE doesn't say that all evolution is fast. And there is evidence for slow change so it would be wrong if he did.
What PE says (and the math of genetics does too) is that speciation events will often happen with a small founder population. That in this smaller population evolution can move along faster than the broad average. Since the population is small it is not likely to be well preserved.
If nothing allows for the separation off of populations and if there are no new selective pressures large populations will remain comparitively static. But notstatic.
None of that suggests 'spontaneous'. It does suggest damm fast, like 1,000's of generations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Skeptick, posted 02-12-2004 6:26 PM Skeptick has not replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 75 (85907)
02-12-2004 7:50 PM


Hey CreationMan, I'm just a little confused about these two statements you made.
Percy,
Again you are showing increase in info in the genes. I need to see NEW info from another organism that is not related. That can't happen biologically, it's impossible.
AND
Look why is this so hard?
When a gene is duplicated, that technically "increases" the amount of information. And when there is a frameshift mutation, this is "new" information.
BUT...
Never will you ever see a gene that codes for reptile scales, undergo a mutation or mutations (even over time) that changes that reptile scale information to bird feather information. I have seen no demonstration of this.
Does this clarify the point???
You mention that you "need to see NEW info from another organism that is not related." Then you say,"And when there is a frameshift mutation, this is "new" information." Can you see why I might be confused? If frameshift mutation is "new" information then wouldn't that qualify as the NEW info you need to see? I'm sincerely asking.
Thanks

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 67 of 75 (85912)
02-12-2004 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Skeptick
02-12-2004 6:26 PM


Skeptick writes:
Spontaneously? Who said evolution is spontaneous? That is creation.
Stephen J. Gould, I thought. As in punctuated equilibrium. Not the same as spontaneous generation, but I it sure sounded like a closely related spin-off to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.
I've given the requested correction in a new thread to avoid further topic drift.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Skeptick, posted 02-12-2004 6:26 PM Skeptick has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 68 of 75 (85964)
02-13-2004 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Skeptick
02-12-2004 6:26 PM


Everyone else beat me to the punch... but I second their statements.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Skeptick, posted 02-12-2004 6:26 PM Skeptick has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 75 (87110)
02-17-2004 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Loudmouth
02-07-2004 4:30 PM


Loudmouth,
Just discovered this post of yours, and the information in it was news to me. Thanks.
Of course, the explanation alternative to evolution is creation, where random mutation is replaced by genetic engineering by supernatural beings. Now that we have at least the possibility that this explanation can be manipulated by prayer, we might have a means of deciding whether the observed "random mutations" were indeed random and not genetically engineered by some supernatural being.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 02-07-2004 4:30 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Loudmouth, posted 02-17-2004 7:25 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 75 (87128)
02-17-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-17-2004 6:42 PM


quote:
Of course, the explanation alternative to evolution is creation, where random mutation is replaced by genetic engineering by supernatural beings. Now that we have at least the possibility that this explanation can be manipulated by prayer, we might have a means of deciding whether the observed "random mutations" were indeed random and not genetically engineered by some supernatural being.
When cloning new genes into bacteria you will often get point mutations. This is due to mistakes made by the DNA polymerase in the PCR (polymerase chain reaction, just in case). The interesting part is that certain DNA polymerases actually have a higher fidelity (fewer mistakes) than other DNA polymerases. If mutations were caused by supernatural geneticists, this phenomenon would not be apparent. Instead, fidelity would not be a characteristic of specific DNA polymerases. Sorry, from every indication, point mutations are the result random mistakes, perhaps related to the binding specificity of the polymerase to the correct base. The best analogy I can think of is this: if a deck is shuffled correctly, the distribution of "first cards off the deck" should be random over an infinite amount of tries. If the deck were stacked to help out the reciever of the first card, the overall distributions would tend to show this. We don't see "deck stacking" in mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-17-2004 6:42 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-17-2004 7:46 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 75 (87130)
02-17-2004 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Loudmouth
02-17-2004 7:25 PM


L.
Good point. Are the polymerase mistakes known to produce something useful?
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Loudmouth, posted 02-17-2004 7:25 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Mammuthus, posted 02-18-2004 3:11 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 72 of 75 (87181)
02-18-2004 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-17-2004 7:46 PM


Yes, they are
Riley MS, Cooper VS, Lenski RE, Forney LJ, Marsh TL.
Rapid phenotypic change and diversification of a soil bacterium during 1000 generations of experimental evolution.
Microbiology. 2001 Apr;147(Pt 4):995-1006.
Papadopoulos D, Schneider D, Meier-Eiss J, Arber W, Lenski RE, Blot M. Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Mar 30;96(7):3807-12.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-17-2004 7:46 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-25-2004 3:48 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 73 of 75 (87375)
02-18-2004 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Yaro
02-12-2004 1:37 PM


Re: chikens
Hey, Yaro, even if CM didn't get it, that was one of the coolest posts I've ever seen. Awesome example. I'm saving that whole post. I'll give you credit whenever I show it someone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Yaro, posted 02-12-2004 1:37 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 75 (88646)
02-25-2004 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Mammuthus
02-18-2004 3:11 AM


M.
Thanks. I hadn't seen those studies, and they are very useful. I still would like to see them replicated with and without prayers, but it sure looks like a confirmation of evolution!
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Mammuthus, posted 02-18-2004 3:11 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Mammuthus, posted 02-26-2004 2:47 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 75 of 75 (88734)
02-26-2004 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-25-2004 3:48 PM


If you look up Richard Lenski you will find dozens of studies in bacteria, including soil bacteria not just his lab E. coli, that confirms his results. He also did a similar study using computer algorithms and basically saw the same thing as with his in vivo studies. He has also studied adaptation in Drosophila and yeast with other groups.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-25-2004 3:48 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024