|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolving New Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
My impression is that this deserves a topic of its own.
Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
slevesque writes: BTW I never found that quote where Shannon talks of biological systems. So unless I ever find it in the future, it doesn't exist and I agree I was in error.
Shannon rejected numerous attempts for him to apply his mathematical theory to DNA. Shannon had a language, an encoding system and a decoding system already in place when he did his experiments. But the truth is an encoding and decoding system can determine the bandwith of transmission. What Shannon never did was explain, in a mathematical model, what information is!. Others have tried. The best we have is that information is not part of the physical sciences. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Lucy!
This sounds like misinformation to me. Where did you find it? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
By the way, has anyone here read John Sanford's book ''genetic entropy ...'' ? I haven't, but you might be interested in 404 Not Found
(an incredible example of creationist evasion), 404 Not Found
, 404 Not Found
, and maybe even
Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Evolutionary Computation
(start with the third message on the page) Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
If you have something to say then say it here. The forum guidelines forbid the use of bare links.
Paraphrase the arguments in your own words please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GuitarPlayer Junior Member (Idle past 5398 days) Posts: 1 Joined: |
Do Not Respond to this off topic post!
Hi, I'm brand new here, and this will probably be my only post because I'm crazy busy all the time... but I have what might be a stupid question -- because to me it's so obvious that it deflates the whole evolution argument instantly!! I'd love to hear to rebuttal from the evolution side (I'm a Christian who believes in a God-created universe and I don't buy the evolution argument at all). Here's my question: If evolution is true, then why is it that every fossilized creature found (at least every one I'm aware of) was a fully functioning creature? I mean, if it had ear sockets, it had ears that could hear. If it had eye sockets, it had fully functioning eyes that could see. If it had arms and legs, it could crawl or walk -- where are the fossilized creatures that had the BEGINNINGS of ear sockets but not fully functioning ears because they were still "EVOLVING" into ears? Where are the fossilized remains of creatures that had small protruding stubs on their sides that were NOT functional as legs yet because they were still "EVOLVING" into legs? Or the very beginnings of a respiratory system that was NOWHERE NEAR functional as a complex functioning respiratory system because it was still in the early stages of "EVOLVING" into a complex respiratory system? In other words, if evolution is supposed to be true, then show me concrete proof of body parts "EVOLVING" from dust & mud -- not ALREADY EVOLVED into fully functioning body parts! Also, the very idea of evolution sounds silly to me because for a heart to "EVOLVE", there has to be blood for it to pump... so blood would have to "EVOLVE" simultaneously with the heart... along with a circulatory system of veins & blood vessels... and organs to cleanse and filter the blood... in other words, since all organs in the body work together in order to function properly and sustain life, the entire body would have to "EVOLVE" all at once for any of it to be useful or functional! That can't happen without a Creator guiding that process. If it could, then why can't we, with all of our high-tech computer technology and scientific know how, create a rabbit in a laboratory using only dust, mud and natural chemicals, and have that rabbit capable of reproducing itself with another lab-created rabbit, and have that rabbit able to see, hear, smell, taste, feel pain, sense danger, feel hunger, etc.? Thanks -- I'm not saying I'm right, and I might one day buy the evolution argument if someone can show me concrete proof of the questions I've raised. GuitarPlayer Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Hi and welcome to EvC.
If you would hang around and ask a few questions you can learn a lot here. However, you do have to follow the protocols. One of them is that you are asked to stay on topic. Your post is not on the topic of this thread. Your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory and lack of knowledge of the facts of natural history is written large in your post. It would do you well to continue here and try to learn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
(As a proponent of ID I want you to know that I am not attempting to start a fight. At least I have not been provoked here yet. I am asking questions and exposing my ignorance on genetics.)
GGAACG (green eyes) GGAACA (blue eyes) GGCACG (yellow eyes) GGCACA (brown eyes) All of the above appear to be variation of two amino acids correct? GGA or GGC - glycineACG or ACA - threonine I wonder what would happen if some of those amino acids had mutations that changed into any of the other 18 new amino acids??? Am I right in thinking that mutations at the beginning of each condon would more likely result in larger mutations? Or would the eyes start to lose some particular functions? For example: ACG becoming UCG instead of ACG becoming AAG
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Damn it Drew!!
Repeat after me Codon, Codon, Codon, Codon, Codon, Codon, Codon, Codon!!!!!! Use the right damn word!!!! TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
No wonder I am confused. I was wondering what his post had to do with contraception.
Edited by Theodoric, : spell Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I didn't quite use that word. But I suppose some of you have guessed what was on my mind.
codon, codon, codon, codon, codon, codon, codon, codon, codon, codon... Some of you get me on technicalities but can any of you answer my questions in my post or really refute many of my main arguments in others?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
really refute many of my main arguments in others? Many times. As a matter of fact, you have pulled out of a few threads when things were not going your way. I think in one you stated something to the affect that we will have to "agree to disagree", when in fact your arguments were wrong. I am not sure if there have been any arguments you have made that have not been refuted. Go back through the threads. I know I am looking for a response on at least a couple. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
traderdrew writes: All of the above appear to be variation of two amino acids correct? First of all, the genetics of eye colour is a lot more involved than just two codons. There are also more colour variations than you described. You can start here to learn more about it.
I wonder what would happen if some of those amino acids had mutations that changed into any of the other 18 new amino acids??? If the codons you described play a role in the determination of eye colour then it might have an effect. The gene those codons are in might not work any more, so it might mean that eye colour would be influenced in some way. It's hard to tell what would happen without knowing which of the many factors that determine eye colour we are talking about here.
Am I right in thinking that mutations at the beginning of each condon would more likely result in larger mutations? Or would the eyes start to lose some particular functions? The mutation of a single nucleotide may or may not result in the coding of a different amino acid, regardless of which nucleotide of the codon is affected. You can verify this yourself if you study some tables listing the codons and their associated amino acids. The effect of such mutations can be anything from no effect at all to quite significant, because it depends entirely on the effect of the new amino acid on the protein it's part of. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3031 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
traderdrew writes:
You are also exposing the fact that you didn't actually read any of this thread, where all of this was covered before.
(As a proponent of ID I want you to know that I am not attempting to start a fight. At least I have not been provoked here yet. I am asking questions and exposing my ignorance on genetics.)
GGAACG (green eyes)
No. All of the above are variations in the bases in two codons. Each of the GGx codons always produces glycine and each of the ACx codons produces threonine. As a result, none of those combinations could not possibly produce differences in eye color, even if those particular codons that produce those two amino acids are in the sequence of a protein for eye color.
GGAACA (blue eyes) GGCACG (yellow eyes) GGCACA (brown eyes) All of the above appear to be variation of two amino acids correct? GGA or GGC - glycine
Amino acids don't mutate - DNA mutates. The effect of a point mutation can be that a different amino acid in a particular protein can be substituted. That change may or may not have an effect on the function of the protein.
ACG or ACA - threonine I wonder what would happen if some of those amino acids had mutations that changed into any of the other 18 new amino acids??? Am I right in thinking that mutations at the beginning of each condon [sic] would more likely result in larger mutations? Or would the eyes start to lose some particular functions?
Not really. A point mutation of one of the bases in either the first or second position, and only sometimes in the third position will produce a different amino acid in the protein sequence. If UAU or UAC mutate to UAA or UAG (stop) the the protein will be truncated at that point. That will usually result in making that protein non-functional. Of course, there are lots of other known types of mutations besides point mutations: indels, inversions, transpositions, duplications. An indel might produce a frame shift mutation like that one that allowed a bacterium to metabolize nylon waste.
For example: ACG becoming UCG instead of ACG becoming AAG
Don't know what you are asking. ACG encodes threonine, UCG encodes serine, and AAG encodes lysine. The changes may or may not change the function of the protein.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I think you failed to appreciate the rather abstract nature of Percy's example.
TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024