Dollo's Law

Doesn't re-evolution of this type falsify your claims
to NRM?If DNA sequences 'always' change in particular locations
by particular base substitutions surely one would not expect to
see any trait re-emerge in one lineage.Further, as soon as you start to talk about the environmental
pressures you have a serious problem since standard ToE
covers this topic convincingly.

Hi, againand another questionQuote
" ...genetic programs for that wings got inactivated --not lost-- over time, and can be expected to be reactivated upon triggers (from the environment (predations, whatever))... "SO
a "steering " mechanism ? OKRELATED QUESTION -->what " steers " the mechanism
? ( I suppose it's also 'genetic ' )
and another -->Isn't that mechanism itself mutating while it duplicates ( well if you like --> also lost (at the end )and selected by environment ? )or
is it simply free of copying error ?and another -->Or is that mechanism not hereditary ?
-->Kind of " grace " or "talent "or other " what-we-have-here "- tricks ?Ha ,I forgot -->
( still another one ) of course --> it was designed ? Isn't it ?Also
--> WHAT ABOUT DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY and its direct connection with
morphogenese ?
Our "heritage "is not simply a genome --> there IS an eg
We do not only get a code but also an "adequate environment '
( of course the extra-genetic part of the egg-cell or whatever
DONOR-cell )so the program can be started to begin with ... )WHAT ABOUT BIOGEOGRAPHY
( I Know de difference between GENO and PHENOtype )Yes , in fact what about CONVERGENCE ?
As far as I understand it is used to explain morphologic similarities in species that are " genetically " far away from each other
WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH A "CONSTRUCTED" excuse : it seems to me that
you are using rethoric ( at least it gave that impression )-DO you dispute common descent of all " known " living things ( on this earth ) from Luca ? in other words do you reject monophylogenetic theories ?
-You reject MACRO-EVOLUTION ?
-Do you think that " one gene is one characteristic ? "-->Well I think you've got a full time job here ---> "explanation"
( spelled correctly now I hope ) -doctor ? spin-doctor ? Teacher , indoctrinator ? , taste-maker?
and yet another
( this is now really the last one )
WHY YOU DO IT ? ...What are your motives ? )and of course I'll wait for your answer
--> only
It's really not so difficult to give me the "adress" where I can find something about the GUToB--> I don't want to wait till I drop
death though ...and if it's still a " speculative gues " , just
say it ...

Hi ,I SupposeThe article is a vulgarised "christian pop- version " of the
"original( ?) source
--> http://www.sweenytod.com/...phpname=News&file=article&sid=50* *Especially interesting is the quote
" ... But their study shows that wings were lost in the primitive ancestor of stick insects, then reacquired four times during evolution.... "I suppose this is one of the "conclusions "of the author ...* *
A brief look at a proposed "tree of Phasmids "
( as published in
http://www.sweenytod.com/...hpname=News&file=article&sid=507
especially the graphic ---> "the big wing switch " )and you can't miss printed allover the picture '( in "THEIR STUDY" of course )
" THE WINGLESS COMMON ANCESTOR "Well , one picture is worth a thousands of words ...ALSO ( these are my comments of course )
How can the "primitive " ancestor ( I suppose that is the "common"
one ) loose ( in his descendant lineages ) what he didn't have to start with ?Did they develop a new feature ( the wings ? ) :new programs to build the "wings " ( at least several times in different lineages )
Did the function of certain genetic codes change
or
did they " loose " the programs that prevented/blocked the emergence of these wings ? ( kind of some degeneration ? )
or
there isn't a common ancestor at all ( it is hypothetical ?)Answer to these questions is the job of experts
( these questions are not presented in the article ... )
I suppose the research is still going on
(and I really think it may be too early to already use it as a falsificator of any " explaining "universal theory at all )However there is a second set of questions too
WHY above kind of journalism ?
Did the "author " ever look at the picture at all ?
OR did he
simply "twist " source material ? or is this another example of dilettantism ?
or
is this simply a "copying " defect --> a "mutation" of the original reference material ?
You also can suppose that it is a "degeneration" of the original
but I do not think it is --> it is "added " not "lost"
or maybe it's just some unprecise , absent-minded sloppy constructMaybe the whole creationist thing is random entropy ? (a very stupid sarcasm /suggestion of mine ? anyway the alternative is ignorance
and intellectual laziness or some plain creed ( both capital sins of course )
The defenders of Creationist degeneration theorie variants , degenerated so much that they just turned in parrots and apes ?It also shows what a "small ad " to a "sequence of information "
can do to the "semantic "( or context / or procedures ) of the original --> in other words changes the " meaning " ( or the instructions to build )of the sentence ( "order" or instruction in coded "machine " language)Or is it "infotainment " that sells well ?Yes they did provide external links ( this is "honest", however
who will read them ? many people ( including myself ) don't bother
with " instruction manuals " ," turorials " and all that , which
are generally "over-complicated "--> trying out screwdrivers to
make some sculptures ; things like that --> of course a "hypothesis"
or even an initial discovery is an instrument to discover more
" concrete ( not only theoretical consequences ) data " and it has to be used properly ... )Is there really some reason to think that
the reader was lied to ? NO ?Of course someone can prefer "different "opinions and has his own
tastes
Just state that they are yours , that's allEverybody is quoting everybody
quoting "scientists" , Quoting some fellow creationists ? quoting
the bible , the koran , the vedas , some voodoo , some new age ,
... and all these " samples " are ingredients of a mix / a soup / a dish ...
These people are cooks , bartenders , making some " cocktails " that
sell and spiced with all the things the buyers want ....Well there is something going on called "information explosion "
acces to it is very fast ---> the more and more difficult it becomes
to explain and to construct/defend UNIVERSAL/MONOLITHIC theories based on ABSOLUTE TRUTHS ...Many information ( not all ) simply escaped --> made possible by technical advances ...making traditional communication control and second information "twisting "totally ineffective( to slow to react
effectively /fast acces to source and reference material )And of course one of the major conditions for scientific advance is
"sharing " of information and peer review WORLWIDE --> there will be increasing "publication " on the net --> those still reluctant to
do so ( for commercial and " copyright " reasons for one example )will become --> non existant ...Next domino to fall ? --> some forms of "knowledge management " ,
these will become totally unfit in this new environment (At least this is my personnal opinion )Ho yes , evolution surely is here
too ... even creationism is evolving ....So They did it again ?( the creationist spin-doctors that is )
I DO NOT BELIEVE in some "BIG CONSPIRACIES "( neither "creationist's " , nor "evolutionist's" hidden agendas )Yet knowledge is growing exponentially ---> no more universal
geniusesI guess it's really stupid if they (them "apologetic" sophists and
story-writers ) tried it again ...
I guess these poor fellars will fail to adept
Yes devolution is maybe whipping out itself
(and maybe the whole human race is --> but that's another discussion )

Dear BA,You have a tremendous amount of interesting questions. Which one do you feel is most urgent to be ansewered?Also you could read my threads:PB2: Look here for all relevant references:http://EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) -->EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)andhttp://EvC Forum: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome -->EvC Forum: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genomeandhttp://EvC Forum: Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToB -->EvC Forum: Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToBandhttp://EvC Forum: More non-random evolution -->EvC Forum: More non-random evolutionandhttp://EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2) -->EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2)Read and you will get a better understanding of life.Best wishes,
Peter"By the way, Mycoplasm genitalium has 580.074 basepairs, and 517 genes (480 coding for proteins and 37 RNA genes). Buchneria aphidicola has 564 genes, and the smallest known genome (viruses not includes) is that of Nanoarchaeum equitans (5exp5 bp, unknown amount of genes)"

Thanks Peterit surely looks fascinating
I'll try to read them

Affirmative ?at least
It falsifies certainly some " creationist's " rhetorics I've found
on the www
( for example ) ---> http://www.c-r-t.co.uk/dreamweaver/
FACTSHEET3.pdf )Some ad rem quotes -excerpts :".... MUTATIONS DON’T ADD INFORMATION:
It is sometimes claimed that there are no beneficial mutations, but this is not strictly true.Mutations can be beneficial to an individual species. For example: some insects on wind-swept islands have lost their wings. This is
advantageous, since it prevents them from being blown into the sea.
( ah of course ---> micro-evolution )The Flightless Cormorant of the Galapagos Islands has lost the power of flight, but because of its atrophied wings it can swim and dive more effectively.However, we must note that in each of these cases mutations have resulted in the loss of genetic information.The insects have lost the information for wings, and the cormorants the information for wings that can fly.Neither, therefore, will be able to regain the power of flight.Dr Lee Spetner wrote:
`Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. Indeed, most mutations result in its loss
( So --->" degeneration "of course )Well , well , well ...
Hallo peter borger ?
( just compare this quote with Peter Borger' s comments --->
Message 8 of 20 in this forum )" Programs for wing developmet were ALREADY present in the last common ancestor of all presented insects.( presented ( in the paper
you mean ? ) insects ---> the phasmidae FAMILY ? that is a large systematic grouping ( an The GUToB holds for such observations that the genetic programs for wings got inactivated --not lost-- over time, and can be expected to be reactivated upon triggers (from the environment (predations, whatever)).You, on the other hand cannot explain .... blablabla ... "(You on the other hand aren't even aware that you hereby ACCEPT
macro-evolution ---> Well what is it ? )and yes we can COMPARE
Everybody does , everydayWhat about that "ADAM of all insects ? "( not the "individual species on some "wind-swept " islands )and what about the " mother" of all DISTORTIONS ? in apologeticsSo science is not about rhetorics ,spin-doctors ,public relations lobbying tactics , blackmail and
expertise in "communication " / " debating skills " and "imago building" , after all ?
oh Lordy ...Well artists are communication experts ( and masters in illusion ) too / it's even one of their survival skills ( and also of some parasites ) ... and of course , of zealots and proselites too ...Still wonder why so many " works of art " are labelled " idolatrie"
and destroyed by the more "primitive" defenders of "absolute truth"?Seems( to me ) creationism is also mutating ( or should I say heretics and "false " prohets are emerging ...challenging the truth )

Dear Tsjok,You, on the other hand cannot explain .... blablabla ... "(You on the other hand aren't even aware that you hereby ACCEPT
macro-evolution ---> Well what is it ? )PB: If my vision is correct, of course. Point I made is that the GUToB was superior to ToE in this case. A close up of the genomic programs that specify the wings will be eluciadting in this matter.and yes we can COMPARE
Everybody does , everydayPB: ...the point is whether the comparison is legitimate.What about that "ADAM of all insects ? "( not the "individual species on some "wind-swept " islands )PB: According to the ToE it evolved from scratch. Via,...via...yeah good question. Ask an evo.and what about the " mother" of all DISTORTIONS ? in apologeticsSo science is not about rhetorics ,spin-doctors ,public relations lobbying tactics , blackmail and
expertise in "communication " / " debating skills " and "imago building" , after all ?
oh Lordy ...Well artists are communication experts ( and masters in illusion ) too / it's even one of their survival skills ( and also of some parasites ) ... and of course , of zealots and proselites too ...PB: I used to draw/paint (and not only the fence) a lot too. That explains it, I guess.Still wonder why so many " works of art " are labelled " idolatrie"
and destroyed by the more "primitive" defenders of "absolute truth"?Seems( to me ) creationism is also mutating ( or should I say heretics and "false " prohets are emerging ...challenging the truth )PB: At last we get insight how life on earth is created: MPG plus NRM.Best wishes,
Peter

PB:
**** If my vision is correct, of course.That's the whole point " vision "Just " visions "
--> both --> creationism and "Evolutionists" ( what's in a name ? )
Both too simple , out-dated worn-out and
too fixed with their own set of endlessly repeated mantra's , unable to cope/assimilate /recuperate/simply understand = explain -->
all the incoming /upcoming discoveries ...
Both trying to block each others programs of research and education ...
Both fighting for power but most of all for
the money of the tax payers and
the controls over the minds of next generation(s) ...
" memetic engineers " both ?PB**** Point I made is that the GUToB was superior to ToE in this case.That I gladly leave to the experts in the field to decide ...
I hope there are others reading all this ...Maybe some will answer****A close up of the genomic programs that specify the wings will be elucidating in this matter.Fine
So let's get them started those "closer looks" (by qualified men, that is--> maybe you ? who knows ? ) ...
I'll wait ...What about that "ADAM of all insects ? "( not the "individual species on some "wind-swept " islands )PB:***** According to the ToE it evolved from scratch. Via,...via...yeah good question. Ask an evo.OK
So I'll repeat the question
" ... What about the COMMON ANCESTOR of all INSECTA ? "
( please , not the old peripatus story --> some new data if possible ...fossils? genetic evidences ? anything )... OF THE WASPS ( yes all of them ) ? OF THE BEES ( "did they really NOT originate in outer space ? "ARF... ARF... ARF ...please don't jump in on this of course ..) ? OF THE ANTS ? OF THE HYMENOPTERA ?
Maybe that suits betterand of course , dear creationists
Do you realise how many of them isecta species there are ?
Must have been a pretty busy fella' that intelligent designer
Really he had nothing better to do ?
or maybe he did nothing at all ?
Well making paley's clock is one thing --->repairing the stupid thing is quite something else --> is the ID a handy-man ? and why did
the id'er make it anyway ?Evo's create from scratch ?
creatio's out of the blue ?
That it ?SOMEBODY ? NOBODY ? ANYBODY ?
THIS IS A FREE FOR ALL
Help ( quote " ... ET phone home ... " )Thanks again ( for what its worth
I've got --> still reading ) ,
It was a privilegeTsjokSee you , don't know how , don't
know when ,don't bother ...

Dear Tsjok,Tsjok asks: Do you realise how many of them isecta species there are ?PB asks: Do you know the function of insecta?Best wishes,
peter

Do you ( or do you not ) realise how many of them isecta species there are ?
This is a simple question (,not a multi-purpose thing ( with some
inbuilt repairing mechanism whatever )
a simple yes/no statement ...Well WHAT is the function of insects ?
you suggest (it seems ) you KNOW so MUCH ,( and of course others don't ))a function
Functioning in what context ?
-->the ecological relationships in the biospere ?
(by the way ever heard of species redundancy in ecological studies ?)their place as components in some I D'ers plan ( -->
components in " gods (or maybe the devil's )plans " or in some creationists ' story )And just try to answer the question asked over and over again
by many all over the discussion boards---> WHERE CAN I FIND THE PEER-REVIEWED , referred to MENTIONED , AND /OR "PUBLISHED " GUTOB THING ( NOT THE ONE IN YOUR " MIND " OR IN THESE EvC groups/discussions )---> WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF YOUR " GUTOB " ?
YOU USE IT TO PROVE/ EXPLAIN ( tell a story about )WHAT ?I tried to read your prop --->This is my last answer
I dont want to waste my time( left ) by reading / and looking ,
---> all old and new crap still around these days ( neither do I
open junk mail nowadays--> just trow it away )... Did all that in my young years , a long time ago..
Well I'am an old man now
---> It seems I have already forgotten what others still try to learn
... But I hope and try to keep a "sane thinking machinery " as long as it lasts until the "I " , itself is gone of course ( it will one day --> and maybe the 'burial' will be two years after that event ---> well this seems an hereditary " degeneration " trend ; in my family ...so I expect that to happen (... an aside --> what is the "function " of that , you think ? )
Won't hurt me either , how should it if I'am no more there "inside "
somewhere ?DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER "functional " Questions
--> YES OR NO ?
--> or do you want to play some "scrabble " ?
I do like "entertainment" , and yes I'am decadent --> but this just isn't only a " brain-sports " forum ?Like a good laugh too
Thanks , there was plentyjust come to the point---> answer for example PETERS Message 16 of 24 01-20-2003 06:20 AM
" ... Doesn't re-evolution of this type falsify your claims
to NRM?If DNA sequences 'always' change in particular locations
by particular base substitutions surely one would not expect to
see any trait re-emerge in one lineage.Further, as soon as you start to talk about the environmental
pressures you have a serious problem since standard ToE
covers this topic convincingly.... "orR.I.P.God bless you

With reference to 'loss of information'::Information as a concept is ill defined, and often
interpreteted in an informal manner.In an evo. scenario where a specied looses its wings,
has it not gained information on how to not have wings?Data and information are not the same.

Hi peterInterestingSo
--> instead of loosing some genetic capital or "information "
( for ever gone --> the degeneration scenario I suppose )
---> the grow of genetic capital --> for example the program
that prevents the construction of the wing-building program
or something like that ?
( just like putting a supplementary brake or slowing device or
whatever that suppresses the program on an specific placement in a production chain ? and a real example of " inefficient " design? )Wonder what all that istsjol

Not exactly what I meant, but interesting thought
none-the-less.I am more concerned with the usage of the term 'information
loss'.Information is a relationship between data and (some or other)
reality (and that reality may be a perception in someone's
brain or a physical feature of the universe).In biologial terms information cannot be gained or lost,
it just changes. And that's all evolution requires ... change.You can loose genetic data, and you can gain genetic data ...
this does not mean that there is an information loss/gain
it just changes the information-relationship.

Thanks , inspiring-------------------------------------------------------------------
In biologial terms information cannot be gained or lost,
it just changes.--------------------------------------------------------------------What is changing ?--> The " program - modules "( genes ) to construct components ?
(mutations in the genes ?)
or
The coordination ( synergy ? linking ? association ? of all the genes in a genome ...
Mutations in the "configuration " of the genes
Mutations in the steering programsOr all that together ( what I believe )There IS an enormous knowledge GAP ( Surely in my understanding of it all --> always was .... No reason to re-install some old Maso-sadist mythologies however )After all I see genomes and brains as " complex and ( still ) very
enigmatic protein- computers ... " but so are the structures seen
on satellite photos of the Nile -Delta
However ....Ciao

quote:

---

Thanks , inspiring

---

Sarcasm?

quote:

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------
In biologial terms information cannot be gained or lost,
it just changes. --------------------------------------------------------------------

What is changing ?

---

The information is changing ... I thought I said that ...
or did you mean something else?

quote:

---

--> The " program - modules "( genes ) to construct components ?
(mutations in the genes ?)

---

Equating genes to program modules is, in my opinion,
incorrect and leads to unwarranted assumptions about
the nature of diversification of life.

quote:

---

or
The coordination ( synergy ? linking ? association ? of all the genes in a genome ...

---

This is more like the way I view biological information.
It is the emergent property of the biological system.

quote:

---

Mutations in the "configuration " of the genes
Mutations in the steering programs

---

Definitely not, this is a change of data not of information.

quote:

---

Or all that together ( what I believe )

---

Information is a poor analogy in biology, but if it is
to be used meaningfully it must refer to the relationship
between the genome and the environment of the organism.The genome is only the data.

quote:

---

There IS an enormous knowledge GAP ( Surely in my
understanding of it all --> always was .... No
reason to re-install some old Maso-sadist mythologies however )

​

After all I see genomes and brains as " complex and ( still ) very
enigmatic protein-computers ... " but so are the structures seen
on satellite photos of the Nile-Delta
However ....

---

Again, I feel that viewing biological systems in this 'computer'
way is counter-productive and leads to assumptions that do
not match reality.Complex as it may be, biology is governed by chemistry.Information should be viewed as an analogy not a hard-and-fast
fact of biology. Even then as a concept it obscures the
issue.