quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:
That is why I disagree with you on the issue of evolution including speciation. Firstly, because the definition itself does not include anything about speciation.
It really depends on what you are refering to. Evolution as changes over time or evolution as it pertains to the theory of Natural Selection through descent with modification (ie HOW evolution occurs). As evolution (changes over time) was originally discussed it described appearence and disapearence of species; as how evolution occurs (the theory of NS) it does describe descent with modification which means speciation. So when you discuss evolutionary science now you are discussing speciation.
quote:
Secondly, I don't think any evidence has been conclusively shown to prove one organism has evolved into a new organism containing information that the old species' genome did not include. If their is no new information in the creature than it has merely adapted and portrayed a characteristic already within it. This is how the allelic frequency of a species changes. It reveals preposessed traits within a population depending on the situation the organisms are in. And also, really close to containing the same information just doesn't cut it. The information in a human that defines major features is extremely similiar to that of a chimpanzee, I think like 99.9 percent of the DNA code is the same. It is the new .1 percent change of information that makes a new species. I should hope you agree that the mental and physical differences between us and chimps are insurmountable. The chimp does not contain information to give him long legs, a handsome face (by human standards), an expansive verbal language, and the ability to engage in technical conversation.
First, nothing is ever "conclusively shown" if by that you mean shown beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is just not how science works. You really can not even prove gravity that way. In fact, that area makes up the largest region of dicsussion within the "Philosophy of Science" where people debate Baconian, Popperian, and other approaches in defining what science is. With that in mind, on to your DNA statements. First, I think that the Chimp/Human DNA homology is in the range of 94 to 98%. Estimates of the changes within the genes themselves vary. It is also important to remember that the karyotyping is different as well. Small changes in DNA can actually have profound phenotypic changes if the mutations occur in regions that are part of developmental regulation. For example, Human development is an extreme example of neonateny, ie retarded development and the retention of many child like characteristics of the proposed parent species. Many of the major differences between man and chimp appears to be in developmental timing and that is controlled by a relatively small number of genes.
quote:
But does this speciation to you, mean that tiny changes in allelic frequency over time can produce complex new information systems and new species and even a new genus? It seems the answer is yes.
The source of this variation is mutation. Changes in allelic frequenct occurs by two major mechanisms, genetic drift of existing genes and their frequencies or mutation followed by neutral or genetic drift or selection based on phenotypic differences.
quote:
Protozoans and bryozoans do not have these properties and they do not contain information in their DNA explaining to ribosomes how to develop these properties.
DNA does not explain to ribosomes how to develop anything. Ribisomes are merely the scaffold that the proteins are made on.
quote:
If the information is different for the sponge and protozoan than I would suggest that the two -- and in fact, because the information in all differing species is quite obviously different-- that the two or any differing species could never, by any process and length of time become the other. This is only true if what we know about information is true. If new information, information that is not reflected at any point in the old species, cannot come into existence without an intelligent source, than the two must be completely independent of each other, but both can come from the same intelligent source.
Please review these
http://www.mad-cow.org/moly_phylo.htmlhttp://www.cmbi.kun.nl/~ursing/reprints/PRSLB98_265p2251-2255.pdfhttp://biology.uoregon.edu/classes/bi355f00/topics/topic%203%2000http://www.zi.ku.dk/evolbiology/pdf/evidence_mbe.pdfthese essentially present DNA sequence data (the storage receptical of your information code) that indicates that these animals, the hippo and the whale did descend from a common ancestor. The odds against the insertion sequence being in the same place for these related animals is immense. The nice thing is that the most recent fossil finds in Pakistan back the molecular data up point to point.
quote:
Or perhaps, evidence supporting the idea that all genetic information for every species on earth began in one creature. That is what I am most interested in.
This was actually proposed as a research point by M. Behe for Intelligent Design. The likely source would be archeobacteria. To date the sequence data from the archeaobacteria back evolution and not ID.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz
™ Version 4.2
