Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?
Admin
Director
Posts: 13107
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 256 of 310 (287645)
02-17-2006 11:47 AM


Topic Drift Warning
This thread wasn't discussing the topic anyway, so hopefully Garrett can return soon. This thread is approaching the 300 message limit and will be closed soon, so I suggest that people begin making some concluding statements related to genomic information to try to wrap things up.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 257 of 310 (287651)
02-17-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Chiroptera
02-17-2006 9:53 AM


Re: Question outstanding!
Well, evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming -- the evidence exists in many different fields of biology, and is observed by many different scientists using a variety of different observational and experimental methodologies. The evidence is so overwhelming that we can safely say that evolution is an established fact.
Typical, absolute nonsense. You guys can say this until you are blue in the face, but it's still wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Chiroptera, posted 02-17-2006 9:53 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by mark24, posted 02-17-2006 2:05 PM randman has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 310 (287653)
02-17-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Garrett
02-17-2006 10:09 AM


Excellent suggestion by Modulous!
quote:
This may be faith based on reason, but it is still faith when absent empirical proof.
Modulous has made an excellent suggestion. Perhaps we should have a new topic to discuss what, exactly, science is, what it does, and how it works. You might be surprised, Garrett, at just how little in science is based on "emprical proof", and how much in science you should, to be consistent, doubt as much as you doubt the theory of evolution.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 10:09 AM Garrett has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 259 of 310 (287654)
02-17-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Garrett
02-17-2006 11:19 AM


Re: Question outstanding!
I didn't ask for evidence of MUTATIONS above the species level...but evidence for CHANGES above the species level.
This still means nothing to me. The only relevant change you could be referring to is mutation (because mutations are the only heritable changes), which happens to individuals at the genetic level.
It's that phrase "change above the species level" that I don't understand. Can you explain what you mean by that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 11:19 AM Garrett has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 260 of 310 (287656)
02-17-2006 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Garrett
02-17-2006 11:24 AM


Re: Question outstanding!
To answer the problem of transistional forms with the response that groupings are determined by scientists and are therefore of no consequence, is a red herring.
Oh, were we talking about transitional forms? You certainly didn't say so.
In fact the fossil record is replete with transitional forms. Almost every organism, in fact, represents a transitional form between what preceeded it and what came after it.
I believe that your difficulty lies in the fact that you seem to percieve "species" as a function of the physical characteristics of an organism, or perhaps as a function of an organism possessing the "essence" of its species.
Species essentialism is a long-discredited view. The modern view recognizes species as reproductive communities; as populations connected by gene flow. Populations that have no gene flow between them are recognized as different species. That need have absolutely nothing to do with their morphological characteristics; two completely identical-looking organisms might very well represent two very different species. Two radically-different organisms might very well be part of the very same species.
It's a function of gene flow, not of change in characteristics. The differing characteristics you observe among all the organisms that live on Earth are the result of individual changes at the individual, genetic level, not "change above the species level", whatever that means. (I'm hoping you can tell me what you're referring to by that phrase.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 11:24 AM Garrett has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 6088 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 261 of 310 (287657)
02-17-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Garrett
02-17-2006 11:24 AM


Classifications
To answer the problem of transistional forms with the response that groupings are determined by scientists and are therefore of no consequence, is a red herring.
But it's NOT a red herring. Not at all or in any way!
I'm going to give you an analogy. People age throughout their lifetimes. We classify different stages as child, adolescent, adult, middle aged, elderly, etc.
Now, NO ONE goes to bed one night as an adult and wakes up middle aged (although drinking to much can make you feel that way!). However, we can look at people and classify them into these categories.
What many creationists are saying is that for aging to occur I have to go to bed one day when I'm a child and wake up as an adult the next day.
Species is just a way for us to classify a GRADUAL process.
I recommend you read Parasimonium's thread titled "All species are transitional". Evoltuion is not focused on changes of of species by changes in POPULATION Groups.
If a population group A exists all members of A will always be withing that group A and give birth to members of group A. Now, if we had an external observer who could look at group A 1 million years ago and group A today he would see 2 different species but it would still be the SAME POPULATION GROUP!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 11:24 AM Garrett has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 262 of 310 (287662)
02-17-2006 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Garrett
02-17-2006 11:24 AM


Transitional forms are NOT the topic
This was your topic originally Garrett. It would be polite and intellectually honest to admit that you were wrong about your original idea.
The topic is about an increase in something in the genome caused by random mutations. Why are you off onto another topic now?
This is called "moving the goalposts" and is a very common trick that creationists try to use. Of course, we've seen it so often that most people aren't fooled. They realize (finally) that they have no support for some original position and so try to move on something else.
I suggest that you take the "no evidence exists for the vast majority of these transitions" to an appropriate thread.
You can, in that thread define what you mean by a "transition". You can describe what evidence should look like. Then discuss which ones do have evidence and which ones don't. You've got a day to actually think that through while you are suspended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 11:24 AM Garrett has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Percy, posted 02-17-2006 3:34 PM NosyNed has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5449 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 263 of 310 (287693)
02-17-2006 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by randman
02-17-2006 11:56 AM


Re: Question outstanding!
randman,
Well, evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming...
Typical, absolute nonsense. You guys can say this until you are blue in the face, but it's still wrong.
Typical, absolute nonsense. You guys can say this until you are blue in the face, but it's still wrong.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 11:56 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 02-17-2006 3:46 PM mark24 has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 264 of 310 (287711)
02-17-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by EZscience
02-16-2006 4:40 PM


Re: How to measure complexity
EZscience writes:
I guess I have no objection to the use of 'complexity' in relative terms when differences are obvious. A horse is more complex than bacteria. Tropical communities are more complex than temperate ones.
The reason I think that differentiation would be a nice tool to "measure" complexity is because it is not subjective. All multicellular organisms undergo cellular differentiation, so I still think it could be used as a way to measure complexity. It's just that not all things can be listed as being more or less complex in comparison. Some things are simply equally complex...and that's just the way it is.
I, too, like definitions that actually define something in a non-arbitrary sense. We can theoretically determine the differentiation number for all living things...it's non-subjective (for the most part I guess...but I'm sure that some scientists could find a way to argue about whether or not this cell or that cell is a separate example of differentiation or not), and for the most part, I think it would work. If it appears that one organism has a complex neural arrangement, but still has a lesser differentiation number than it’s counterpart, so what? The measurement is, after all, simply "our" designator (much like our current classification system). But hey, who cares . if it turns out that we (humans) are less complex than say...a bottlenose dolphin, then so be it The point is, is that we would still have some sort of measurement that would apply to all living things in the same manner. Measure their differentiation number, list them accordingly, and let the chips fall where they may.
I suppose your right though . the exercise itself would probably be futile. Science doesn’t really need a complexity measurement, and even if one were supplied, if it didn’t give the creationists and IDers that values they wanted, they’d simply assert that it was all wrong or pretend that it didn’t even exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by EZscience, posted 02-16-2006 4:40 PM EZscience has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22947
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 265 of 310 (287738)
02-17-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by NosyNed
02-17-2006 12:19 PM


Re: Transitional forms are NOT the topic
Hi, Ned, hope you don't mind me inserting my opinions here.
NosyNed writes:
This was your topic originally Garrett. It would be polite and intellectually honest to admit that you were wrong about your original idea.
Garrett and Randman can confirm if I've got this right, but it was my interpretation that as far as the original topic goes, they already pled nolo contendere a while back, which is fine by me. Perhaps we should just be content with hoping the audience thinks we won.
The topic is about an increase in something in the genome caused by random mutations. Why are you off onto another topic now?
This is called "moving the goalposts" and is a very common trick that creationists try to use.
To be fair to Garrett, I don't think blame for the topic change can be laid at the feet of any single individual. I know the counterarguments, but given the magnitude of the task he set himself I thought he did very well and compiled an excellent record of working within the Forum Guidelines, just a little bit better than did his evolutionary counterparts (which includes me). I hope he can return soon.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by NosyNed, posted 02-17-2006 12:19 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by AdminOmni, posted 02-17-2006 3:46 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22947
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 266 of 310 (287747)
02-17-2006 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by mark24
02-17-2006 2:05 PM


Re: Question outstanding!
Hi Randman,
I know I'm replying to Mark24's message, but this is actually addressed to you because of the way Mark24 replied, which I quote here:
mark24 writes:
Well, evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming...
Typical, absolute nonsense. You guys can say this until you are blue in the face, but it's still wrong.
Typical, absolute nonsense. You guys can say this until you are blue in the face, but it's still wrong.
If Mark24's point was already clear then just ignore this, but in case not, he's highlighting the pointlessness of replying in this fashion. Both sides can sit in their respective corners and shout ad hominems at each other, or they can engage in constructive discussion. Which, by the way, is the entire reason this forum exists, to provide a venue where constructive discussion between creationists and evolutionists can take place through effective moderation to eliminate all the crap.
In an ideal world all the members would understand this and there would be no need for moderators. In a slightly better world than this, everyone would only need an occasional reminder. But in this real world in which we live it turns out that there are some people who can not conform themselves to constructive discussion and respectful behavior no matter what.
I know you believe the evolutionist side is just a bunch of lying, thieving hypocrites bent on nothing less than the moral destruction of the western world, but if you're really better than your opponents then you may as well demonstrate it by behaving better.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by mark24, posted 02-17-2006 2:05 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by mark24, posted 02-18-2006 7:52 AM Percy has not replied

AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 310 (287748)
02-17-2006 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Percy
02-17-2006 3:34 PM


I disagree, but defer
I know the counterarguments, but given the magnitude of the task he set himself I thought he did very well and compiled an excellent record of working within the Forum Guidelines, just a little bit better than did his evolutionary counterparts (which includes me). I hope he can return soon.
--Percy
Percy, you want him, you got him.
I strongly disgree with your evaluation of his conduct, but I will defer to your wishes, now twice expressed.
His suspension has been lifted.
This message has been edited by AdminOmni, 02-17-2006 03:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Percy, posted 02-17-2006 3:34 PM Percy has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5408 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 268 of 310 (287777)
02-17-2006 4:14 PM


Here is my summary of thoughts from this thread.
Multiple lines of evidence indicate that genomic information can increase in lineages through a variety of well-understood genetic mechanisms, e.g. gene duplication and chromosome doubling to name two.
Acumulatied increases in genetic information over evolutionary time scales are necessary to explain adaptive radiation of lineages that, in many cases, have generated increasingly 'complex' organisms. However, increasing complexity is not an inevitable outcome of increases in genomic information, although the latter is likely a requirement for the former. Nor do lineages surviving long periods in evolutionary time necessarily give rise to complex descendents. Some things are selected to remain simple.
Finally, we see the 'invisible barrier' to macroevolution once again being raised by the anti-evo folks that would claim organismal divergence above the level of species cannot occur. I suggest that the real theoretical challenge here is to explain why two separate species (or whatever higher taxa you choose) should NOT become increasingly different in time. Any two populations that do not share a common gene pool anymore are genetically isolated and would be expected to diverge over time *simply by chance*, although the odds are they will also experience divergent selective forces unless they lead almost identical life histories in identical habitats (e.g. the special case of sibling species).
The one constant in biological and ecological systems is that things change over time, whether this involves organisms aquiring new genetic information, or simply altering the expression of their existing genomes. The onus is on anyone who wishes to posit limits to the extent of that change to produce some hypothetical mechanism that might prevent it. If bacteria can change genetically to become resistant to antibiotics, what mechanism is it that prevents higher taxa from diverging into forms that are completely dissimilar from one another and their common ancestors?

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 4:51 PM EZscience has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 269 of 310 (287788)
02-17-2006 4:45 PM


banning the effective creationist?
Seems like I've seen this movie before, btw. But getting into the OP again.
Information is the key factor if microevolution is going to eventually extrapolate into macroevolution. The evolutionists might try to counter this by pointing out that the reason we may not see new information arise is because it is extremely rare. So rare, in fact, that it might not ever happen in our lifetime or even in several generations. Admittedly, this might actually be true when it comes to multi-cellular life forms; however, if this type of evolution is true or is at least even possible, then one might not have to look much further than microscopic single-cellular life forms such as bacteria to observe the changes. Under the right conditions, a bacterium can divide every 20 minutes.[3] This means if the conditions are right, one bacterium can multiply into billions of bacteria within 24 hours. As any biologist can testify, the numbers at which bacteria can populate is staggering, and because bacteria can multiply so quickly, this can be used to simulate eons of time. If macroevolution is true, it shouldn’t be that inconceivable to see bacteria gain new genetic information. It also shouldn’t be too unreasonable to expect to see a single-cellular bacterium evolve into a multi-cellular bacterium. Why then has this never been observed to occur even in bacteria? Perhaps it’s because the types of changes that are needed to lead microevolution to macroevolution simply do not happen.
If the definition of microevolution is limited to what has been observed, then it is a powerful testimony that life has not evolved. It is no surprise to creationists that animals become more specialized and often lose information when they ”microevolve’. This should be expected since our Creator created everything perfectly and now things are winding down.
What counts as information increase?
In this article, I’ve tried to stress new information. Why? In order to get the point across that new information must be information that the life form did not originally possess. Sometimes evolutionists like to give examples of mutations that do technically increase information in an organism. They are, however, the wrong types of information increase needed as evidence for molecules-to-man evolution. Such an example would be certain humans who possess an extra chromosome at position 21. I want to first point out that this is a harmful mutation which results in Down’s syndrome, [4] so it hardly counts as evidence for evolution. Also, while this might technically be an increase, it is not the type of increase we are looking for in order for macroevolution to be true. The human already had the information, it just was duplicated. This is not new information. It leads to a harmful mutation, and it certainly tells us nothing about the origin of the information.
It may well be true that "information" is hard to define. I think the same is true for "random" and for "species" and a great many things, but nevertheless, the idea that the information potential to evolve a microbe to a man must be explained thoroughly by observed effects by evos if they are going to make their case.
The writer in the quote above points out that we do not see bacteria mutate from a single-cell form to a multi-cell form, but considering their rate of duplication, it would seem that we should. Now, for all I know, we do see this, but the claim is there, and it deals with an actual observed process.
Do we see such a process occur, or is the writer correct? If he is correct, then I think it is fairly strong evidence that evolutionary processes can be limited in their ability to add information, despite the difficulty in completely defining the concept of information.

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by crashfrog, posted 02-18-2006 1:20 PM randman has not replied
 Message 286 by AdminOmni, posted 02-18-2006 7:20 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 270 of 310 (287790)
02-17-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by EZscience
02-17-2006 4:14 PM


fundamentally erroneous
The onus is on anyone who wishes to posit limits to the extent of that change to produce some hypothetical mechanism that might prevent it.
Just saying, well, creatures change and so that, wholla, is proof of macroevolution is a fundamental error evos make, and compound that error demanding someone disprove their unproven claim as if the onus is on the critic.
What we observe about these changes is they have not shown a limitless potential, but are governed by well-defined parameters. Moreover, there are organisms (bacteria) with such a high rate of multiplication, that perhaps we should see valid macroevolution taking place, but we don't.
So our observations do not show macroevolution. The onus is thus on evos to validate their claims, not insist others disprove their bare assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by EZscience, posted 02-17-2006 4:14 PM EZscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2006 5:53 PM randman has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024