Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Impossible evolution of new beneficial proteins
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 16 of 75 (85146)
02-10-2004 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by CreationMan
02-10-2004 5:46 PM


Re: Mutation
If that is truly the case, then maybe you could tell us what makes you think that evolution needs to show an increase of information.
If what random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift etc, are doing isn't considered "increasing information", then obviously this increase isn't needed by evolution.

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by CreationMan, posted 02-10-2004 5:46 PM CreationMan has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 17 of 75 (85149)
02-10-2004 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by CreationMan
02-10-2004 5:46 PM


Re: Mutation
Dr. Lee Spetner (biochemist) said that all point mutations studied on the molecular level tend to REDUCE the amount of information. Not increase it.
He was mistaken, then. Does a population of Mossi people in West Africa whose DNA codes for both hemoglobin A and hemoglobin C have a) more, b)the same amount of or c)less information in their genome than a neighboring population whose DNA only codes for hemoglobin A?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by CreationMan, posted 02-10-2004 5:46 PM CreationMan has not replied

  
CreationMan
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 75 (85151)
02-10-2004 5:57 PM


Oh Boy
Looks like we have a couple of idiots on a forum.
What is an information generator using to generate information? Code...where is the code coming from...in an intelligent agent. Thank you for verifying my argument.
New Information on the molecular level looks like information that is not present anywhere else in the genome of that organism. The information must come from outside the genome naturally (from another organism). If you mate a reptile and a bird their info won't mix because they are so different genetically. Duh!
And BTW the example you gave didn't show how new info could arise. But merely how info can be translocated. AAANT WRONG Try again.

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"
Creation Man

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 02-10-2004 6:12 PM CreationMan has not replied
 Message 23 by AdminNosy, posted 02-10-2004 6:18 PM CreationMan has not replied

  
CreationMan
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 75 (85153)
02-10-2004 6:01 PM


Surprise
Your little tribe which codes for multiple forms of hemoglobin has the same or even possibly less information.
Just because you have a new function in phenotype, doesn't necassarily mean you have to have an increase of new info in the genotype. Go take a bio 101 class for petes sake and stop waisting my time.

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"
Creation Man

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 02-11-2004 6:48 PM CreationMan has not replied

  
CreationMan
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 75 (85156)
02-10-2004 6:06 PM


In order for evolution to work (reptile arm to bird wing) you need the info from the bird wing to be introduced to the reptile arm.
THAT'S WHY EVOLUTION NEEDS NEW INFO.
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.

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"
Creation Man

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Asgara, posted 02-10-2004 6:15 PM CreationMan has replied
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 02-10-2004 6:26 PM CreationMan has replied

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


Message 21 of 75 (85157)
02-10-2004 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by CreationMan
02-10-2004 5:57 PM


Guidelines Notice
Hi CreationMan!
This raises my concern:
Creationman writes:
Looks like we have a couple of idiots on a forum.
We have a set of forum guidelines that members agree to follow when they join. Since you just joined today I advise that you take it slow and get the feel of the place before taking too many chances. This site is for serious science-based discussions about Creation/evolution. If you'd like to explore less serious discussion then you can do that here, too, but we reserve the Free For All and the Coffee House forums for this purpose. In the serious discussion forums please carefully follow the Forum Guidelines, particularly rule 3:
    In addition, you appear to be using the large, non-specific reply buttons that appear at the top and bottom of message pages. This makes it very difficult to tell which message you're replying to, especially since you're not quoting what you're replying to. Beneath each message you'll see a tiny little reply link. Click on this link and your reply will be just to that message, and links accompanying your message and his message will indicate that fact.
    Welcome aboard, and I hope you have a nice stay!

    --Percy
    EvC Forum Administrator

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 18 by CreationMan, posted 02-10-2004 5:57 PM CreationMan has not replied

      
    Asgara
    Member (Idle past 2303 days)
    Posts: 1783
    From: Wisconsin, USA
    Joined: 05-10-2003


    Message 22 of 75 (85159)
    02-10-2004 6:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 20 by CreationMan
    02-10-2004 6:06 PM


    Wait just a minute in post 19 you say this:
    Just because you have a new function in phenotype, doesn't necassarily mean you have to have an increase of new info in the genotype
    Yet in post 20 you say this:
    In order for evolution to work (reptile arm to bird wing) you need the info from the bird wing to be introduced to the reptile arm
    Now I might not have a degree in bio but these BOTH seem to me like phenotypic changes, one of which you claim doesn't need an increase in info and one of which you claim does.

    Asgara
    "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by CreationMan, posted 02-10-2004 6:06 PM CreationMan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 33 by CreationMan, posted 02-11-2004 6:43 PM Asgara has not replied

      
    AdminNosy
    Administrator
    Posts: 4754
    From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Joined: 11-11-2003


    Message 23 of 75 (85161)
    02-10-2004 6:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 18 by CreationMan
    02-10-2004 5:57 PM


    Manners
    You may take this as a reminder to be polite.
    Forum rule 3
    Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 18 by CreationMan, posted 02-10-2004 5:57 PM CreationMan has not replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22392
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.3


    Message 24 of 75 (85162)
    02-10-2004 6:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 20 by CreationMan
    02-10-2004 6:06 PM


    From an earlier message:
    CreationMan writes:
    Have there ever been mutations shown to INCREASE NEW information in the genes. I.E., Information causing a reptile arm to turn into a bird wing.
    If you're talking about turning a reptile arm into a bird wing within a single generation, then this is not the theory of evolution. Change is gradual within evolution.
    From your last message:
    CreationMan writes:
    In order for evolution to work (reptile arm to bird wing) you need the info from the bird wing to be introduced to the reptile arm.
    Again, I'm not sure if you're referring to sudden jumps of evolution, which evolution can't speak to since it isn't part of the theory, but if we can talk about gradual change then let's return to the example of the population of organisms, and the offspring that experienced a new mutation. The population might have been one of ancient reptiles that were forerunners to birds, and the offspring might have experienced the mutation in the gene of an arm (foreleg, I assume you mean).
    But applying the example to a specific situation is unnecessary to showing that mutation increases information. The math is self-evident.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by CreationMan, posted 02-10-2004 6:06 PM CreationMan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by CreationMan, posted 02-11-2004 6:31 PM Percy has not replied
     Message 31 by CreationMan, posted 02-11-2004 6:31 PM Percy has not replied

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


    Message 25 of 75 (85166)
    02-10-2004 6:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by CreationMan
    02-10-2004 5:46 PM


    Re: Mutation
    CreationMan writes:
    And BTW MUTATIONS HAVE NEVER BEEN OBSERVED YEILDING NEW INFORMATION.
    That's not true, in fact. A straight forward counter example is the Apo-AI Milano mutation, which is carried by something like 30 individuals in a small Italian village. The mutation has a number of significant effects; and most importantly it gives the carriers an effective immunity to heart disease. It works by more efficient clearing of bad cholesterol.
    With regard to information, all carriers are heterozygous; meaning that they carry the new more efficient mutated gene and also the original unmutated gene (one from each parent). This is plainly an increase in "information" from most people who simply have two copies of the unmutated gene. It is also beneficial.
    See: The Milano Mutation: A Rare Protein Mutation Offers New Hope for Heart Disease Patients
    Evolutionary change would require the addition of new information, which is not a feature of the sort of changes one sees in bacteria. Even when a bacterium develops resistance where there previously was none in the population, by mutation (a random copying mistake which changes the genetic information), the change still represents a loss of information. This sounds counterintuitive, but it’s important to recognize that enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule. Mutations reduce specificity. Hence the enzyme is less effective in its primary function, but it is able to break down other molecules too. In no case have bacteria been observed to become resistant through a gain of new information, i.e., the emergence of a completely new gene that produces a completely new enzyme.
    This is not true either. A good example of a completely new gene giving a completely new enzyme is the famous nylon digesting bacteria. The primary mutation involved is a frameshift mutation, which completely alters the protein sequence, for a completely new enzyme.
    The new enzyme is called 6-aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase. The name basically means "nylon digesting". It is interesting to read Lee Spetner's own comments on this mutation! Basically, Spetner says that the mutation does increase information, and asks instead whether or not it is random. Basically, Spetner appears to be some kind of an old earth creationist who wants a special kind of non-random mutation as a mechanism for a guided evolution. But he is not really clear on this; that is my attempt to comprehend his position.
    Dr. Lee Spetner (biochemist) said that all point mutations studied on the molecular level tend to REDUCE the amount of information. Not increase it.
    Actually, Dr Lee Spetner is a physicist; not a biochemist. He received his PhD in physics in 1950, and worked in applied physics at John Hopkins University in the sixties. One year (1962-1963) he had a fellowship with the department of biophysics at John Hopkins; and this engendered his interest in biology.
    His rather idiosyncratic views on information theory stand out as one of the only attempts by creationists to give a quantified definition of information, which is an essential requirement for any claim about information increase or decrease; but examination of the work shows that it actually falls significantly short of an unambiguous definition. No creationist has ever given a plain quantified definition of information by which the nonsensical claim of "no information increase" can be supported.
    In correspondence with Gert Korthof, Lee Spetner flatly contradicts the claim made above about the impossibility of information increase. Quoting Spetner from this letter:
    I shall emphasize again: There is no theorem requiring mutations to lose information. I can easily imagine mutations that gain information. The simplest example is what is known as a back mutation. A back mutation undoes the effect of a previous mutation. If the a single nucleotide change in the genome were to lose information, then a subsequent mutation back to the previous condition would regain the lost information. The back mutation clearly adds information. Since these mutations are known to occur, they form a counterexample to any conjecture that random mutations must lose information.
    Further on in the correspondence, some concrete examples are given, and Spetner's comments in correspondence are:
    Thank you for the reference to Wilks et al. I am delighted to add that piece of information to my collection. Yes, I agree with you that the mutation in this example does appear to add a lot of information to the genome, and I believe it really does (I have also found another, by the way).
    Spetner goes on to speak of how such mutations are unlikely or rare; and we could critique that also. For the time being I just want to clear up the misconceptions about what Spetner is actually saying. The claim that information increase is impossible is nonsense, and it is incorrect, and Spetner knows it.
    For mutations in general, we need a clear definition of information before one can claim that a particular mutation does or does not increase information. Spetner's definitions are vague; but any attempt to pin down a clear definition will allow one to give examples of mutations (and not just back mutations!) which increase information by that definition.
    Cheers -- Chris
    [This message has been edited by cjhs, 02-10-2004]

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by CreationMan, posted 02-10-2004 5:46 PM CreationMan has not replied

      
    Loudmouth
    Inactive Member


    Message 26 of 75 (85167)
    02-10-2004 6:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by CreationMan
    02-10-2004 5:46 PM


    Re: Mutation
    quote:
    Dr. Lee Spetner (biochemist) said that all point mutations studied on the molecular level tend to REDUCE the amount of information. Not increase it.
    Tend to? How about we say point mutations can lower information, but can also increase information. If you want, I can post examples. Of course, I am expecting a hand wave soon.
    I am sure that you are familiar with the "nylon bug", the flavobacterium that GAINED an enzymatic function due to a FRAMESHIFT MUTATION. How is this not an information gain. If this is not an information gain, give me a concrete hypothetical example of a positive information gain at the DNA level. Not at the phenotype level, but at the genotype level. Show me how adding, subtracting, or changing nucleotides will never increase the information of DNA.
    [This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-10-2004]

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by CreationMan, posted 02-10-2004 5:46 PM CreationMan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 32 by CreationMan, posted 02-11-2004 6:39 PM Loudmouth has not replied

      
    AdminTL
    Inactive Member


    Message 27 of 75 (85254)
    02-10-2004 11:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by CreationMan
    02-10-2004 4:59 PM


    Re: Ya'll missin' the point
    There is NO scientific evidence to show that new information has arisen by mutaions in a genome. And new information cannot arise out of nowhere, (that's a scientific law) That shows that macro-evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
    No, it doesn't. It doesn't show anything at all. No one is agreeing with you that new information can arise through mutations, and they gave you a great example in the random number generator.
    In the end, though, all I see is a lot of fuss by creationists about definitions. Ok, great, don't call it new information. Say it arose from old information, so it doesn't count as new information. You can have your definition, which no one agrees with. Nonetheless, mutations occur and have been seen to occur. Some mutations are beneficial, as you have pointed out.
    As these beneficial mutations accumulate, what begins as micro-evolution turns into macro-evolution. Darwin, 150 years ago, described the progress that leads from a jointed crab leg to a claw, and he gave examples of each step in nature. He described the step-by-step progress from light-sensitive cells to a full-fledged eye with a lens, and he gave examples of each step in nature. All of those steps are small enough to be possible through beneficial mutations.
    So, a claw can develop from a leg by accumulated beneficial mutations, which you agree occur. An eye can develop from a few light-sensitive cells through beneficial mutations, which you agree occur. Now I grant you your definition. No new information was gained in the process from leg to claw and from light spot to eye. Nonetheless, such progress is macro-evolution, so your information hypothesis definitely does not show that macro-evolution is impossible.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by CreationMan, posted 02-10-2004 4:59 PM CreationMan has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by truthlover, posted 02-10-2004 11:56 PM AdminTL has not replied

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


    Message 28 of 75 (85255)
    02-10-2004 11:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 27 by AdminTL
    02-10-2004 11:55 PM


    Re: Ya'll missin' the point
    Oops, I'm new to this admin thing. Sorry, forgot to revert out of admin mode. That was not an admin message.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by AdminTL, posted 02-10-2004 11:55 PM AdminTL has not replied

      
    CreationMan
    Inactive Member


    Message 29 of 75 (85488)
    02-11-2004 6:22 PM


    FYI
    For your information....definitions are very important. If we are going to discuss something we need to understand what it means. Evoluton can mean a lot of different things depending on context.
    Frankly I don't care if you or anyone else agrees with me. I don't believe in green cats, if you disagree with me you just show your ignorance.
    You can't show me one example of mIcro-evolution lead to mAcro-evolution. Want to know why?
    BECAUSE IT'S BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
    If a pig accumulates tons of mutations eventually it's going to develop a disease and die. True I did say that mutations CAN be beneficial, but I also said that they are RARE. Mutations are rare. they occur about one in in every 10^7 copy of a DNA molecule. That is rare...the chance of that mutation being beneficial is even more rare.
    In theory it would take several thousand related mutations to get a reptile arm to function as a bird wing. Suddenly it's not 10^7 but now it's 10^3000 you odds ain't look so good buddy. And the odds of any of those mutations being beneficial is even less.
    Even if by majic someone the information for wings appeared in the genes of a pig, it is more than likely (from a biological stand point) that they would not even be expressed in the Phenotype, and if they were (by some astronomically large number of chance) they would (judging from other instances in biology) be severly degredading to the organism (namely the pig).
    Macro-evolution will be true the day pigs can fly.

    "The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"
    Creation Man

    Replies to this message:
     Message 35 by Sylas, posted 02-11-2004 6:56 PM CreationMan has replied

      
    CreationMan
    Inactive Member


    Message 30 of 75 (85490)
    02-11-2004 6:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
    02-10-2004 6:26 PM


    Percy, My apology for the "name calling" I didn't mean it in that light, I meant to refer to the mental capacity of the writers. However, after reading the post I realized it might be taken the wrong way. I wish there was a way to edit what has been posted.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by Percy, posted 02-10-2004 6:26 PM Percy 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