|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2350 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
So if "A" is dogs, then all the descendants are still members of the "dog" clade. Or in other wordsSo if "A" is dogs, then all the descendants are still members of the "dog" kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
According to Jerry Coyne there are no ring species.
There are no ring species – Why Evolution Is True
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Dogs are an example of how genetic diversity can be lost. A purebred dog has consistent traits because all other traits have been bred out of the breed. Each purebred has less genetic diversity than the dog population as a whole.
Another example is that the bacteria in Lenski's LTEE have reduced their genomes, discarding genes that aren't beneficial in the experiment environment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Darwin used many examples of animal breeding to support his arguments for natural selection. Since humans are part of nature then deliberate selection by humans is a form of natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Many different coat colors are seen between species of pocket mice and even within the same population because of differences in their genotype. Multiple aspects of the environment put selective pressures on pocket mice to adapt their coat colors. [wikipedia]
Mutations can be selected for and fixed in populations but are they information adding? Human adult lactose tolerance is an example of a mutation that has spread but has not increased genetic information. Nylonase is another example where natural selection has fine tuned an existing enzyme to improve its activity on nylon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Human adult lactose tolerance
All mammals are born lactose tolerant so they can digest their mother's milk. This normally switches off after weaning. Human adult lactose tolerance is simply a case of a broken switch. Lactose intolerance - creation.com. Nylonase, fine tuning"This is the story of a pre-existing enzyme with a low level of promiscuous nylonase activity, which improved its activity toward nylon by first one, then another selectable mutation. In other words this is a completely plausible case of gene duplication, mutation, and selection operating on a pre-existing enzyme to improve a pre-existing low-level activity, exactly the kind of event that Meyer and Axe specifically acknowledge as a possibility, given the time and probabilistic resources available. Indeed, the origin of nylonase actually provides a nice example of the optimization of a pre-existing fold’s function, not the innovation or creation of a novel fold." The Nylonase Story: When Imagination and Facts Collide | Evolution News See also The Nylonase Story: How Unusual Is That? | Evolution News The Nylonase Story: The Information Enigma | Evolution News
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
That is just an ad hominem attack to avoid facing the issues raised. Anyway Evolution News is not Creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Yes you have posted it before and
- It's still an ad homonem attack. Deal with the issues. - I'm a Young Earth Creationist and the Discovery Institute is not. - I posted the Discovery Institute reply to the Wedge document issue.* - Sensuous Curmudgeon is not an unbiased commentator. New Book Debunks Common Myths in ID-Evolution Debate *Oops, no I didn't. But here it is The "Wedge Document": So What? Edited by CRR, : Link to document added
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Lactase. There are two groups, one with a fully functioning lactase system and one with a defective system. Actually there is a third, those born with lactose intolerance who have a non functioning system.
Nylonase. Try reading the links, that's what they're for. They give a full discussion which I took a quote from. And it's not a Creationist web site, however the link for lactase is.
Tanypteryx asks; Creationists put a lot of importance on gain and loss of "genetic information". What would be the impact if they did not add information? What would be the impact if they did add information? In either case, if they are acted on by natural selection, they could be beneficial or harmful, or both. It is the theory of evolution that relies on the gain of copious quantities of genetic information. Creationists are just asking how the theory can be taken seriously when the evidence is that the mutation selection mechanism appears to be insufficient to explain where that information comes from. See my replies to Coyote about ad hominem attacks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
There are several mutations are cause a loss of genetic information but which have a net benefit in particular circumstance. Lactose tolerance is one. So are many cases of antibiotic and insecticide resistance. So to some extent is sickle cell trait.
Since the lactase mutation has disabled part of the regulatory system it is information losing even if it is beneficial; or more correctly it has a net benefit. It is detrimental where there is no access to dairy products which explains why there is a close correlation between dairying and adult lactose tolerance. Evolution by losing genetic information is downhill and would be a valid argument if you are saying that bacteria evolved from people but it doesn't work if you propose that people evolved from bacteria. If all you can see is the benefit without also counting the cost then you have a naive view of evolution. It wasn't Creation.com that was being criticised, it was Discovery Institute. It's not an appeal to authority to simply reference an article on someones website. It is an ad hominem attack to not assess the referenced article because it is on a website you don't approve of. If that is acceptable then I could equally refuse to accept references to talk origins or other sites I don't agree with. I don't do that. I read the article and respond on its merits. I would expect others to do the same. So only after you have read the referenced articles, try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Ohhh Lovely, so many replies. I would like to thank all my faithful followers here on EvC for their efforts. Unfortunately it would be terribly tedious to reply to everyone individually so I will settle back to craft a singularly spiffing general reply to continue your enlightenment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Does the theory of evolution require a gain of copious quantities of genetic information?
Yes it does. Both in Darwin's formulation and in the modern neo-Darwinian version, although Darwin of course knew nothing of genes or DNA. Both versions believe that the all life on Earth is ascended from primitive ancestors. Darwin lacked the evidence to definitely say only one ancestor but he made it clear that it was his belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. Most proponents of the modern version, on the evidence of DNA, definitely conclude there was a Last Universal Common Ancestor. In both versions this common ancestor is envisaged as some simple life form of minimal complexity. In the modern version with a genetic basis this is supposed to be a single celled organism with a minimal functioning genome, perhaps only a few hundred genes. Some believe this ancestor arose naturally on Earth from non-living matter, some propose panspermia, and some believe it was created by God. However this original life form did not contain or produce more than a fraction of the genes and proteins life today. Nor did it have multi-cellularity, specialised tissues, organs, and appendages. All of these are supposed to have been produced by evolution over billions of years. [F]rom so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. Now I say that to produce all these new attributes would require a vast increase in genetic information. Not only to produce all the new proteins but also to regulate them and to produce the multitude of body plans we see today. Some object to calling this genetic information, saying such a term is meaningless until it can be measured and quantified. Even Shannon Information could not be measured and quantified until Claude Shannon published A Mathematical Theory of Communication in 1948. This did not mean such information did not exist before then. Just so, even if it can't currently be quantified no reasonable person doubts that this genetic information exists. As I have shown in previous posts progress is being made in measuring and quantifying functional information; but the information already exists or it could not measured. Conclusion: The Theory of Evolution;Has a direction. It is attempting to explain microbes to man, not the reverse Requires the development of multicellularity, specialised tissues, organs, and complex body plans This development requires the production of new genes and genetic information; in copious quantities
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Admin, this is NOT a duplicate post.
Does evolution require a gain of genetic information? Now we are no longer talking about the Theory of Evolution but merely about change over time in organisms; and that's another matter. Taking one common definition of evolution, a change in allele frequencies in a population over time, we can see that since this does not propose any mechanism for formation of new alleles then it can only result in loss of alleles, not a gain. If any allele reaches 100% then competing alleles must be reduced to 0% and lost. Can mutation make up the shortfall? First we need to note that loss or disablement of genes can be beneficial in the right environment. This is often the case with antibiotic resistance. Generally in wild populations the genetic change that produces resistance exists in very low numbers. This has been confirmed from samples obtained before we started using antibiotics. These are usually a mutation that disables some feature such as a binding site that the antibiotic requires to work. In the absence of antibiotics these are mildly detrimental and so remain at very low numbers. When exposed to antibiotics there is strong selection pressure against the majority of bacteria without the defect allowing the resistant version to rapidly dominate the population. If antibiotic use is discontinued the proportion of the resistant strain slowly decreases confirming that in these conditions the mutation is mildly detrimental. Sickle cell trait provides a similar example in that the trait is selected against where malaria is absent and only increases to significant levels where malaria is prevalent. However even there the defective allele never exceeds 20% because at higher levels the detriment outweighs the benefit. Adult lactose tolerance is likewise a genetic defect that allows lactase production to continue into adulthood. For most mammals this is a mild detriment since there is the metabolic cost of continuing to produce an enzyme that is lo longer required after weaning. However humans that practice dairying have lifelong access to milk and there is net benefit for them in adult lactose tolerance. Around the world there is a close correlation between dairying and adult lactose tolerance. Further confirmation comes from Lenski's Long Term Evolution Experiment. The bacteria lost a number of genes that were not needed in the controlled laboratory environment, saving the metabolic cost of maintaining these genes. A benefit from a loss of genetic information. None of these examples show a mutation that is solely beneficial. Rather they show defects that have a net benefit in some circumstances. Nor do they show an increase in genetic information, rather the damage or complete loss of genetic information. Conclusion: Evolution (as opposed the the Theory of Evolution)Does not have a preferred direction Can involve the loss of advanced features Can involve the loss of genetic information Edited by Admin, : Hide text of duplicate post. Edited by CRR, : This is NOT a duplicate post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Should I cross post my two previous messages in "How do you define the word Evolution?" or is that frowned on?
I think they belong in that forum more so than this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
The population contained one gene and now there are two genes. You don't seem to understand what is actually happening to the gene, at least in the case of lactase. There is no new gene. At best there is a new allele of the gene. Even in the case of Nylonase it is not as once proposed a new gene created by a frameshift mutation but only a duplication and fine tuning of an existing gene that already had some activity on nylon.
How is it [adult lactose detrimental] detrimental [where there is n access to dairy products]? There is a metabolic cost of maintaining production of an enzyme that is no longer being used. That's why it is normal for lactase production to be switched off after weaning.
The theory of evolution does not propose that people evolved from single celled organisms. Yes it does, as you showed in the next paragraph. It proposes that man evolved from microbes through a long chain of intermediates.
The Discovery Institute is a creationist organization... No it's not. At best you could characterise it as being theistic evolutionist but the people at Biologos who claim to be theistic evolutionists would probably object to that. DI has many "faiths" in its following including agnostics.
...that performs no scientific research. Again false, as you can confirm by clicking the Research tab on Center for Science and Culture | Discovery Institute#The Biologic Institute is a non-profit research organization founded in 2005. The Evolutionary Informatics Lab is a group of STEM (science/technology/engineer/math) professionals who focus on the role of information in the modeling and analysis of evolutionary processes and related phenomena. They also provide research grants and fellowships and publish in peer reviewed scientific publications as well as publishing Bio-Complexity journal. I understand that you might have swallowed some propaganda against DI but I trust that now you know better you will desist from spreading that propaganda.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024