|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Increases in Genetic Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Just being real writes:
Nope. You made yourself look bad by: Cause I'm not seeing the relevance, with the exception of a sad attempt at making me look bad as opposed to having anything really substantial to speak to the point I was making. 1. Telling untruths. 2. When pointed to the fact that you told an untruth, you tried to cover your untruth with more untruths. You did it all to yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
And as I'm sure you already know, I followed someone else's error in poor choice of wording. You accepted without bothering to check a standard creationist lie. That lie is all over the interwebs, and lives on because creationists assume it is true and uncritically pass it on without checking. That lie is not alone. You should realize that creationist and fundamentalist websites are full of these deliberate lies. You do no credit to your arguments by blindly accepting them and passing them on. The rest of your post reflects this uncritical acceptance as well.
But does this error in wording mean that no scientists were ever deceived by Piltdown man? A few were. Piltdown was a hoax, but it fooled primarily the British paleoanthropologists because it reinforced what they were looking for. The South African and other researchers didn't buy Piltdown because it didn't fit with what they were finding. Miller doubted the find by 1915, and Edmonds questioned it in 1925. By about 1932 Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang, and they were later proved correct. Most researchers were ignoring Piltdown by this time because it didn't fit.
And if that is true how exactly does that also undermine the fact that the public was deceived by Piltdown man along also with Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Homo Habilis, Australopithecus, Ramapithecu, and Neanderthalensis? You are mixing about five different things here, something like the classic Gish gallop. Piltdown was a hoax that fooled some paleoanthropologists for 40 years, others for just a few, and some not at all. The public has nothing to do with any of this. The rest of these--your case is nothing more than creationist nonsense. You are trying to disprove all of evolution because initial examinations of some specific finds are not what the profession eventually determined. That's where the research and study and peer review comes in, don't you know. Some folks are great at finding fossils, while others are great at figuring out what they are. Those who find them have the rights to publish their interpretations first, then it's a free-for-all as everyone else weighs in. Louis Leakey is a classic example: a number of his initial interpretations were later revised. After a few years or decades there is a consensus reached as to where that particular fossil fits. All the while newspapers and magazines are grabbing headlines on anything they can. Big deal--that's the way things work in science. But I guess this isn't good enough for creationists--they want instant, inerrant, answers. But if you examine your own world, you'll find that there are some 40,000 different denominations, sects, and offshoots of Christianity, all believing they are the only ones with the TRVTH. In science when there are disagreements, we use the evidence to settle them. It may take a while but that's the nature of things. With Christianity, if there are disagreements you just start a new sect or denomination, adding to that 40,000 number. Empirical evidence has nothing to do with belief, scripture, revelation, and interpretation. Given the state of your house, it looks rather silly of you to be picking on science until you can do better yourselves. At least we can correct our errors. If you took a closer look at some of the paleoanthropological data, rather than rejecting it all automatically as fraudulent, you might be surprised at how consistent it is, and how it actually does contribute to a coherent understanding of our past. And the more recent genetic data fits right in as well. You can pick on a few examples, such as Piltdown, but that was corrected over 60 years ago! Your argument really boils down to: some paleoanthropologists made some mistakes in the past, and although they have been corrected you're not going to believe a word of what they say no matter what because you're uninformed belief says otherwise. Does that about sum it up?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined:
|
Due to a request to get back on topic I will reserve my replies to everyones funny comments for another thread. Since only one of all of you addressed a post on topic I will comment on that one only.
Bluegenes: That doesn't contradict what I said, does it? And mutations are known to cause new variants. Unless you can find a mechanism that stops species changing over time, you have to agree that common descent is "possible". That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to establish Bluegenes. I’ve been asking for an example of observed mutation that added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism that gave it a selective advantage over its relatives. Not an example where we have observed natural selection merely select already existing genes within the gene pool. So far no one has ever managed to present me with one. Not a single one.
Information enters population groups from the environment. Huh? Every bedtime story I’ve ever been told about evolution has the information building up by the process of random mutations (in the genetic code) and natural selection, selecting those traits which give the organism an advantage to survive over the others. I’ve never heard anyone claim that the environment actually puts the information in there. If you have some new scientific theory on this, I’d love to hear it.
Here's an example: Neofunctionalization I have a question for you to consider when it comes to claiming that the antifreeze gene is an example of added new information to the DNA code. If two species in any order are compared, who determines which of the two species are the oldest and possesses the genes of the original configuration? This is important because once again, how do we know the antifreeze gene may not have been the original, and the others without the gene aren’t the result of loss of information? Did someone invent time travel and go back to take samples of the original? Rather it is bacteria, fossils, or fish, if you are trying to demonstrate A is related to Z there must be at least one observed path somewhere to show relationship is even possible. You cannot use speculated relationship to prove added information, in order to prove relationship. If you do, now you are employing circular reasoning. If you are trying to establish relationship with fossils, for example, then the observed path would be in the form of a finely graduated chain between at least one set of major kinds. You should have at least one somewhere in order to logically assume that similarity between fossils, in all cases, equates to relationship. If you are trying to establish relationship with anything organic, you obviously can't observe this path over millions of years, so relationships between species are limited to what you can physically observe over relatively recent generations. Yes, with speciation, we have observed small changes occur. But these changes can be (in most of the cases) shown to be the result of natural selection, selecting already existing alleles, and over time a loss of information. The paper cited compares DNA of different species in order to conclude that fish have evolved an antifreeze protein. But in order for the difference between the two sequences to be meaningful, there must be a logical reason, based on observation, to conclude that the two species were in fact related and that the one with the missing antifreeze protein was the original configuration. Since such relationship obviously cannot be observed (over a 15 million year period), the paper must assume relationship through similarity. As I have previously said, we are looking for a case of added information to the DNA in order to establish that similarity equates to relationship between two kinds. You can’t first claim that similar DNA suggests that specie A is related to specie Y, and then turn around and suggest that similar DNA equates to relationship because A and Y are related. That is basing one argument off of the other and then establishing that one off of the first which as you should know is completely circular reasoning. In the case of the antifreeze gene, it is not a case of someone actually having observed new information added to the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organism. It's a prime example of a similarity argument turned in on itself.
No-one designed your unique genome, My unique genome is a combination of pre-existing genes from my mother and my father. I did not receive some completely new information that did not exist which gave me spider man abilities or the ability to see infrared light. We observe mixing of the existing genes in the gene pool all the time to create new unique combinations within the population. What I am looking for is the adding of new never before existed information that can show that molecules to man evolution is possible.
Again, do you mean the genetic code, or new added coding genes? I thought jbozz21 did a good job of explaining what is meant, but allow me to try to simplify what I am talking about here. Imagine asking Donald Trump how he got so wealthy. If he said, Well I started out as a wee lad with only five dollars to my name, and I opened a bank account in one bank and then I transferred all the money across town to another bank and then to another, and kept doing this, occasionally losing a penny here and a penny there, but over time I amassed my great wealth. You would scratch your head in confusion because obviously you know that a person cannot get wealthy just moving the same money back and forth. Somewhere along the way a good deal of new funds has to be added to Mr. Trumps account in order for him to be so rich. Likewise you can’t start out with a simple single celled organism and claim that through millions of years of transferring the same gene pool of information back and forth, it can eventually evolve into an astrophysicist. Somewhere along the way we would have to introduce a whole lot of new genes that produce a whole lot of new and advanced phenotypes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
duplicate
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to establish Bluegenes. I’ve been asking for an example of observed mutation that added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism that gave it a selective advantage over its relatives. Several such examples of mutations that provided new information have been given. Why is it additionally necessary to show a selective advantage. After all, whether a variation provides a selective advantage or is neutral, or possibly even detrimental is a function of external factors. A change is not inherently advantageous. It should be enough to show a mutation and to describe an advantageous environment if the goal is merely to show that such a thing is possible. As has been pointed out, your refusal to allow any inferences in the evidence trail means that you are insisting on direct evidence only.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Just being real writes: I’ve been asking for an example of observed mutation that added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism... You've been given examples already, so since you're still asking for examples I have to wonder if it has anything to do with your placing quotation marks around "observed." If only eyewitness evidence is acceptable to you then there's very little knowledge on any subject you should accept, including that the Bible was written by God.
...that gave it a selective advantage over its relatives. Whether a change provides an advantage depends upon the environment. A mutation conferring the ability to digest the plastic in pop bottles would be a great boon to a bacteria living in a landfill, and of no use whatsoever to one living in the jungle. Since the effects of mutations are random with respect to the environment most mutations will not confer an advantage, but some do, and those are selected for and persist and then spread through a population. But in any case, we've also provided examples of advantageous mutations.
My unique genome is a combination of pre-existing genes from my mother and my father. I did not receive some completely new information that did not exist... Every human being's genome, including yours, has some number of mutations (average is somewhere between 50 and 100), which represent "completely new information that did not exist."
...which gave me spider man abilities or the ability to see infrared light. Or how about the ability to digest lactose, which we know today appeared around 5000 years ago due to the T-13910 mutation (see the Wikipedia article on lactase persistence for more details, the full story is fairly interesting). --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
JBR writes: I’ve been asking for an example of observed mutation that added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism that gave it a selective advantage over its relatives. How bed bugs have developed immunity to insectacides.
Pyrethroid insecticides target the sodium channels within the insect nervous system. Point mutations in the sodium channels, termed the kdr mutations, reduce or eliminate the binding affinity of insecticides to sodium channels causing insecticide resistance6. Two mutations, V419L and L925I, in voltage-gated sodium channel α-subunit gene had been identified as very important substitutions responsible for deltamethrin resistance in bed bugs21, 30. A causal link between one or both mutations and deltamethrin resistance was reported21. A dual-primer Allele-Specific PCR (dASPCR) approach was developed to identify these two kdr mutations. Two PCR reactions performed with Susceptible Allele-Specific Primer (SASP) and Resistant Allele-Specific Primer (RASP) primers conclusively show status of kdr mutations (Fig. 2A) Nature - Not Found Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
I’ve been asking for an example of observed mutation that added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism that gave it a selective advantage over its relatives. Find the differences between the humans and chimp genomes. Those are the mutations you are looking for.
Huh? Every bedtime story I’ve ever been told about evolution has the information building up by the process of random mutations (in the genetic code) and natural selection, selecting those traits which give the organism an advantage to survive over the others. Natural selection is a process whereby information moves from the environment into the the gene pool of a population. Why does one mutation become more common than another? That information is due to environmental pressures.
I have a question for you to consider when it comes to claiming that the antifreeze gene is an example of added new information to the DNA code. If two species in any order are compared, who determines which of the two species are the oldest and possesses the genes of the original configuration? You compare them to a third species. If two of the species share the same base at a given position then that gives you information on the ancestral sequence.
You cannot use speculated relationship to prove added information, in order to prove relationship. Relationships are determined using non-funcational DNA. Common ancestry and the function of a specific DNA sequence are two independent conclusions. For example, we can establish common ancestry between humans and apes by comparing endogenous retroviruses which are largely non-funcational. In fact, we don't even need to know what function an endogenous retrovirus may have in each genome in order to test whether or not humans and other ape species share a common ancestor.
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences The paper cited compares DNA of different species in order to conclude that fish have evolved an antifreeze protein. But in order for the difference between the two sequences to be meaningful, there must be a logical reason, based on observation, to conclude that the two species were in fact related and that the one with the missing antifreeze protein was the original configuration. The logical reason is the mountains of evidence supporting universal common ancestry such as the ever present nested hierarchy.
My unique genome is a combination of pre-existing genes from my mother and my father. I did not receive some completely new information that did not exist which gave me spider man abilities or the ability to see infrared light. We observe mixing of the existing genes in the gene pool all the time to create new unique combinations within the population. What I am looking for is the adding of new never before existed information that can show that molecules to man evolution is possible. So you have had the following done? 1. You and your parents' genomes sequenced. 2. Align that sequence. 3. Find the mutations that are specific to you. 4. Tested the genes that these mutations occurred in and tested for changes in function. Have you done this? If not, I really don't see why we should accept your claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jbozz21 Member (Idle past 3998 days) Posts: 46 From: Provo, UT Joined: |
Or how about the ability to digest lactose, which we know today appeared around 5000 years ago due to the T-13910 mutation (see the Wikipedia article on lactase persistence for more details, the full story is fairly interesting). Percy, humans have always have had the ability to digest lactose. I think what your refering to is the adult human's ability to. We are born with it and then loose it after we stop breast feeding. We stopped loosing the ability as adults when we started drinking other animals milks, mainly cows. So that is not new information just old genes that don't get turned off."all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44 "And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
Why is it additionally necessary to show a selective advantage. After all, whether a variation provides a selective advantage or is neutral, or possibly even detrimental is a function of external factors. A change is not inherently advantageous. It should be enough to show a mutation and to describe an advantageous environment if the goal is merely to show that such a thing is possible. The reason it's necessary is because the term "mutation" can be extremely deceiving and can give the wrong impression. It is a word that is often (even by those in the professional field) incorrectly applied to situations such as, where nuclear contamination produces deformities. It is often misused to describe deformed flies, snakes with two heads, albino animals, children with Down Syndrome, renegade cancer cells, etc... These are all genetic "flaws," not advanced genes which carry life forward. And that is what we are looking for here. Also, damaged genes are not truly new genetic codes. They are mistakes within present gene combinations. Something like smacking your TV with a base ball bat and getting an all red or all yellow picture. The result is not a new brand of television, but rather just a broken one. For a true mutation to occur that demonstrates the mechanism of macro evolution, the DNA would have to somehow reorganize into a genetic sequence that has never been known before now that gives the organism a selective advantage, and I don't think that has ever happened in either nature or in the laboratory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
JBR: I’ve been asking for an example of observed mutation that added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism...
Percy: You've been given examples already, so since you're still asking for examples I have to wonder if it has anything to do with your placing quotation marks around "observed." And I explained in post 28 why observation is important in this situation. Perhaps you missed it.
quote: And the main point I want to stress is that just shrugging your shoulders and saying, I don’t believe in an intelligent designer therefore that is not even an option, is not a valid reason for ignoring the necessity of observation here. That is nothing more than a personal bias. That would be akin to me telling SETI that I don’t believe in evolution and therefore your search for extra-terrestrial intelligence on other planets is dumb and a waste of time. As someone with a scientific mindset I would encourage exploration of all possible avenues. Wouldn’t you?
But in any case, we've also provided examples of advantageous mutations. I’m sorry was there one I missed that I haven’t responded to? I thought I had replied to all that had been presented thus far. But I’m far from perfect and could have easily missed some. Perhaps you would be so kind as to give me the post numbers?
Every human being's genome, including yours, has some number of mutations (average is somewhere between 50 and 100), which represent "completely new information that did not exist." Just to be clear here, by mutations do you mean flaws in the replication of existing genes from the human gene pool, or do you mean completely new gene sequences that provide a selective advantage? And if the later, do you have a paper you can cite in which a study was performed observing the human population over time where the a new generation of humans had a genetic advantage over their parent population? Because I’ve never heard of this study but like I said, I am far from perfect.
Or how about the ability to digest lactose, which we know today appeared around 5000 years ago Hmmm, I must say I have difficulty believing that anyone began a scientific study on human lactose persistence 5000 years ago, meaningful enough that we can go back to and examine the data collected from all the DNA samples taken of all the humans back then. JK! Seriously though, in order for this example to fit the bill of "observed new information in our DNA, there would have to be a study in which a parent population was isolated and examined so that it was known not to already have the lactose gene, and then watched develop the new phenotype over several generations. Got anything like that? Because the Wikipedia article appears to be merely yet another example of natural selection, selecting already existing genes from the populations gene pool. And that doesn’t help us demonstrate that macro evolution can happen. Also just FYI, if an example is presented in a debate situation, that is then shown to be inadequate to fill the requirements, then it no longer counts as an example. Just thought you should know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
A report today about how bed bugs have developed immunity to insectacides. This sounds like a possible winner. Unfortunately something is wrong with your link and I couldn’t view the paper. I will research it and get back with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Percy, humans have always have had the ability to digest lactose. I think what your refering to is the adult human's ability to. We are born with it and then loose it after we stop breast feeding. We stopped loosing the ability as adults when we started drinking other animals milks, mainly cows. So that is not new information just old genes that don't get turned off. The change in gene expression was due to a mutation. That is new information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
And I explained in post 28 why observation is important in this situation. Perhaps you missed it. The problem that you have is that we observe a nested hierarchy. This is the very pattern of shared and derived features that we would expect evolution to produce. You are essentially saying that a designer would make it look like evolution happened, even if it didn't. That doesn't make any sense. It is a like a defense attorney claiming that the jury should ignore all of the fingerprint and DNA evidence because God could have planted the evidence at the crime scene in such a way that it is indistinguishable from known natural mechanisms.
Just to be clear here, by mutations do you mean flaws in the replication of existing genes from the human gene pool, or do you mean completely new gene sequences that provide a selective advantage? By mutations we mean changes in the DNA sequence of your genome as compared to that of your parents. Mutations are random with respect to fitness, so they can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. The facts are that each of us are born with mutations, changes in our genomes that did not exist in our parents. This happens in every single generation. Your parents have mutations not found in your grandparents. Your grandparents have mutations not found in your great-grandparents.
Hmmm, I must say I have difficulty believing that anyone began a scientific study on human lactose persistence 5000 years ago, meaningful enough that we can go back to and examine the data collected from all the DNA samples taken of all the humans back then. The genomes of living humans are a direct record of their ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The reason it's necessary is because the term "mutation" can be extremely deceiving and can give the wrong impression. It is a word that is often (even by those in the professional field) incorrectly applied to situations such as, where nuclear contamination produces deformities. It is often misused to describe deformed flies, snakes with two heads, albino animals, children with Down Syndrome, renegade cancer cells, etc... These are all genetic "flaws," not advanced genes which carry life forward. And that is what we are looking for here. But that's not a misuse, that's the use, that's why "those in the professional field" actually use it that way. It's any change in DNA, whatever the cause, whatever the outcome. You cannot redefine the word "mutation" to mean "those mutations the existence of which Jbr would like to deny", because you don't have powers like that over the English language.
For a true mutation to occur that demonstrates the mechanism of macro evolution, the DNA would have to somehow reorganize into a genetic sequence that has never been known before now that gives the organism a selective advantage, and I don't think that has ever happened in either nature or in the laboratory. Then what you think is wrong.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024