Macroevolution: Its all around us...

quig23 claims

quote:

---

On resistance, you need to understand that mutations cannot create NEW Information.

---

From talk origins :

quote:

---

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

​

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

​

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

​

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at PubMed) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

---

No new information my foot.This message has been edited by Alasdair, 05-13-2005 03:04 PMThis message has been edited by Alasdair, 05-13-2005 03:04 PM

Yes it is.Look, let's represent genetic infomation with THE CAT SAT ON THE MAT.Then, we duplicate the A. It now reads THE CAAT SAT ON THE MATLook! New information!

quote:

---

Now realize that all the examples you gave are not examples of this. If you disagree prove me wrong with more details with strait forward evidence.

---

Don't tell me that you looked up this in that short a time:

quote:

---

We have observed the evolution of

​

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

---

Tell me how these AREN'T examples.

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.

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?

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