Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 46 of 195 (238911)
08-31-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 8:17 AM


Well why not just answer the question with regard to your own example?
Do either 'Every Bird Has Wings Wings-' or 'Every Bird Has Wings Wongs-' contain what you would consider to be 'new' information?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 8:17 AM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 9:28 AM Wounded King has replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 195 (238913)
08-31-2005 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
08-31-2005 7:55 AM


Macro-Evolution theories.
"Scientists believe that vertebrate genomes originally evolved molecular defense mechanisms against the detrimental mutations caused by transposable elements. Over time, however, these defense mechanisms, which involve modifying DNA, may have been co-opted by the host genome for its own regulatory functions. The relationship between transposable elements and their host genomes may be something of an evolutionary arms race, with each trying to overcome the opponent's defenses. Although the evolutionary history of transposable elements is far from determined, the evidence suggests that transposons may play a significant role in the evolution of host genomes.
For an overview of the different kinds of transposable elements and mechanisms of transposition, see:
Alberts, B., et al. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 3rd ed. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994."(shortend link. Use peek to learn how to insert links please)
Did you not google the 2 words that I told you to google?
"The evolution of the metazoa has been characterized by gene redundancy, generated by polyploidy, tandem duplication and retrotransposition. Polyploidy can be detected by looking for duplicated chromosomes or segments of orthologous chromosomes in post-polyploid animals. It has been proposed that the evolutionary role of polyploidy is to provide extra-copies of genes, whose subsequent alteration leads to new functions, increased biological complexity, and, ultimately, speciation. We review the theory of evolution by genome duplication, basing our arguments on findings from autopolyploid anurans and fish, undergoing post-polyploidy diploidization. We conclude that: 1) the high genetic variability of autotetraploid anurans is a result of tetrasomic expression, based on studies of isozymes and other proteins. 2) Epigenetic mechanisms mediate the reduced expression or silencing of redundant copies of genes in the regulation of gene expression of these tetraploids. This conclusion is based on data concerning ribosomal and hemoglobin gene activity. 3) Duplication of the genome may have occurred more than once in the phylogeny of the anurans, as exemplified by 4n and 8n Leptodactylidae species."(Evolution by polyploidy and gene regulation in anura)
Thats all I did
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-31-2005 12:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2005 7:55 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2005 5:27 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 195 (238922)
08-31-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Wounded King
08-31-2005 8:46 AM


They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic informationthese mechanisms create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 08-31-2005 8:46 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Wounded King, posted 08-31-2005 9:50 AM tjsrex has replied
 Message 195 by ohnhai, posted 01-28-2006 11:48 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 195 (238926)
08-31-2005 9:44 AM


"The evolutionist’s ‘gene duplication idea’ is that an existing gene may be doubled, and one copy does its normal work while the other copy is redundant and non-expressed. Therefore, it is free to mutate free of selection pressure (to get rid of it). However, such ‘neutral’ mutations are powerless to produce new genuine information. Dawkins and others point out that natural selection is the only possible naturalistic explanation for the immense design in nature (not a good one, as Spetner and others have shown). Dawkins and others propose that random changes produce a new function, then this redundant gene becomes expressed somehow and is fine-tuned under the natural selective process.
This ‘idea’ is just a lot of hand-waving. It relies on a chance copying event, genes somehow being switched off, randomly mutating to something approximating a new function, then being switched on again so natural selection can tune it.
Furthermore, mutations do not occur in just the duplicated gene; they occur throughout the genome. Consequently, all the deleterious mutations in the rest of the genome have to be eliminated by the death of the unfit. Selective mutations in the target duplicate gene are extremely rareit might represent only 1 part in 30,000 of the genome of an animal. The larger the genome, the bigger the problem, because the larger the genome, the lower the mutation rate that the creature can sustain without error catastrophe; as a result, it takes even longer for any mutation to occur, let alone a desirable one, in the duplicated gene. There just has not been enough time for such a naturalistic process to account for the amount of genetic information that we see in living things.
Dawkins and others have recognized that the ‘information space’ possible within just one gene is so huge that random changes without some guiding force could never come up with a new function. There could never be enough ‘experiments’ (mutating generations of organisms) to find anything useful by such a process. Note that an average gene of 1,000 base pairs represents 4^1000 possibilitiesthat is 10^602 (compare this with the number of atoms in the universe estimated at ‘only’ 10^80). If every atom in the universe represented an ‘experiment’ every millisecond for the supposed 15 billion years of the universe, this could only try a maximum 10^100 of the possibilities for the gene. So such a ‘neutral’ process cannot possibly find any sequence with specificity (usefulness), even allowing for the fact that more than just one sequence may be functional to some extent."(by Jonathan Sarfati, with Michael Matthews, Mutations | Answers in Genesis )

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Wounded King, posted 08-31-2005 10:12 AM tjsrex has replied
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2005 10:43 AM tjsrex has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 50 of 195 (238927)
08-31-2005 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 9:28 AM


Well why not give us a useful example then. Your birdy wing sentence appears to be amenable to no possible transformation which you would admit to giving rise to 'new' information, so it seems rather redundant to have ever brought it up. If there is a transformation which would be sufficient then please tell us what it is.
Why talk about the need for new genes when the matter at hand is your own example. You said "If somehow a new word was added to the sentence then it would show macro-evolution." so why would the introduction of the word 'wongs' not be sufficient to meet this criterion?
Let me make explicit the analogy to gene duplication and neo-functionalisation, the acquiring of a new function for a gene. We have duplication of the 'wings' gene and the neo-functionalisation of one copy to the 'wongs' gene, in what way does this not demonstrate the production of a new gene? Allowing of course, for the sake of argument, that the 'wongs' gene produces a related functional protein with a discrete function, or domain of expression, from that of 'wings'.
You may wish to argue that gene duplication is not on the scale of a micro-evolutionary event, but in that case you are going to have to make the actual working definitions for micro and macro much more explicit.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 9:28 AM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 12:56 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 51 of 195 (238931)
08-31-2005 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 9:44 AM


A cut and paste of something by Sarfati hardly seems like much of an argument.
However, such ‘neutral’ mutations are powerless to produce new genuine information.
A 'neutral' mutation has as much power to produce new information as any other mutation, if the gene is not expressed however the mutation is much more likely to be lost again.
The larger the genome, the bigger the problem, because the larger the genome, the lower the mutation rate that the creature can sustain without error catastrophe; as a result, it takes even longer for any mutation to occur, let alone a desirable one, in the duplicated gene.
Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong but this just seems totally wrong-headed to me. It shouldn't make any difference how large the genome is. The frequency of mutation is usually measured in something like mutations per base pair per generation, which since it is measured in base pairs means that the frequency of mutations throughout a genome will increase proportionally with the size of that genome. So it is the length of the gene that will change the likelihood of a mutation occurring within the gene not the size of the rest of the genome.
This ‘idea’ is just a lot of hand-waving. It relies on a chance copying event, genes somehow being switched off, randomly mutating to something approximating a new function, then being switched on again so natural selection can tune it.
There is no requirement for the gene to be switched off. Simply increasing the amount of a protein expressed may lead to changes in phenotype which may act as a substrate for selection. The actual scenario is that in many cases such genes tend to become no longer transcribed and degenrate into pseudogenes due to neutral selection, this sort of change would in fact be highly detrimental to neo-functionalisation not a neccessary part of the process.
Only slight changes to a protein, as little as 1 amino acid, can significantly change that proteins kinetics either in terms of enzymatic activity or binding properties, either to DNA or other proteins. There are also more sophisticated changes than simple base pair substitutions, such as domain swapping, which can produce radically new combinations of binding and active domains, or combinations of binding domains leading to the formation of novel protein complexes.
As is so often the case the assumptions behind the argument are highly suspect and the conclusions drawn almost totally unsubstantiated.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-31-2005 10:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 9:44 AM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 1:18 PM Wounded King has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 52 of 195 (238935)
08-31-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 9:44 AM


To list some of the errors in Sarfati's claims:
1) There is no requirement for the gene to be deactivated (and therefore no requirement for it to be reactivated).
2) The genetic code is highly redundant and therefore the number of possible proteins a gene of a given length could code for is significantly smaller than the number of differnet combinations of the bases.
3) We cannot say that there has not been enough time unless we know the number of useful proteins and how they are distributed in sequence space relative to the mechanisms of mutation - factors Sarfati completely ignores.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 9:44 AM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 3:05 PM PaulK has replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 195 (238983)
08-31-2005 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Wounded King
08-31-2005 9:50 AM


quote:
Well why not give us a useful example then. Your birdy wing sentence appears to be amenable to no possible transformation which you would admit to giving rise to 'new' information, so it seems rather redundant to have ever brought it up. If there is a transformation which would be sufficient then please tell us what it is.
Why talk about the need for new genes when the matter at hand is your own example. You said "If somehow a new word was added to the sentence then it would show macro-evolution." so why would the introduction of the word 'wongs' not be sufficient to meet this criterion?
Let me make explicit the analogy to gene duplication and neo-functionalisation, the acquiring of a new function for a gene. We have duplication of the 'wings' gene and the neo-functionalisation of one copy to the 'wongs' gene, in what way does this not demonstrate the production of a new gene? Allowing of course, for the sake of argument, that the 'wongs' gene produces a related functional protein with a discrete function, or domain of expression, from that of 'wings'.
You may wish to argue that gene duplication is not on the scale of a micro-evolutionary event, but in that case you are going to have to make the actual working definitions for micro and macro much more explicit.
When you change the word wing into wong you are required to drop the i and replace it with an o. The O was not in the original word so it must be added. That would suggest macro-evolution. If the word wing is altered to say something like wnig then no information is needed. either way in order for the gene to become new, new information must be added. The old cannot be altered and called new, unless speaking about new as in different. In order for a new gene to be produced information that was not there in the first place must be produced. If from a mutation then why have no mutations been known to add information?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Wounded King, posted 08-31-2005 9:50 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2005 2:02 PM tjsrex has replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 195 (239002)
08-31-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Wounded King
08-31-2005 10:12 AM


quote:
A 'neutral' mutation has as much power to produce new information as any other mutation, if the gene is not expressed however the mutation is much more likely to be lost again.
A 'neutral' mutation is known only to alter already existing information instead of adding information. That is why he worded it as Genuine information. So in other words he is saying,'neutral' mutations don't produce new information and that makes them powerless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Wounded King, posted 08-31-2005 10:12 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Wounded King, posted 08-31-2005 5:41 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 55 of 195 (239032)
08-31-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 12:56 PM


So would a substitution of one base for another constitute a gain of information ?
If not, then how about a mutation that changes an amino acid in the protein a gene codes for ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 12:56 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 4:05 PM PaulK has replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 195 (239059)
08-31-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
08-31-2005 10:43 AM


quote:
To list some of the errors in Sarfati's claims:
1) There is no requirement for the gene to be deactivated (and therefore no requirement for it to be reactivated).
2) The genetic code is highly redundant and therefore the number of possible proteins a gene of a given length could code for is significantly smaller than the number of differnet combinations of the bases.
3) We cannot say that there has not been enough time unless we know the number of useful proteins and how they are distributed in sequence space relative to the mechanisms of mutation - factors Sarfati completely ignores.
1)I don't understand the whole activation and deactivation process and what role it plays. Could one of you explain it to me? its not a trick question im just curious, because right now I am making an assuption that if it is not deactivated then it would be destroyed because of natural selection.
2) how much smaller? again not a trick question, just trying to get a better understanding.
3) Many people ignore things to make there view seem more persuasive then the other. Yet sometimes people just forget to add certain factors in. I am not justifying it only saying what is obvious. It would be awesome if someone would figure out the odds with the factors factored in.
Creationists and Evolutionists have been known to leave factors out. Here is a nice read: http://itw.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Capstone/2000/hoffman.html
Just anothe example of factors being left out. I would love to see the factors put in.
P.S. anyone who drives should watch the news, Gas prices are going to go up hardcore...not sure if in all places, but it would be good to go and fill up your tank.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2005 10:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2005 3:48 PM tjsrex has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 57 of 195 (239090)
08-31-2005 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 3:05 PM


In answer
1) So far as I know it is something that can happen, but it isn't really part of the process. Therefore it doesn't have a role.
2) For every 3 bases there are 20 possible amino acids. And 64 possible combinatiosn of bases. So for 999 bases there are:
about 10^433 possible proteins
(if we include stop codons as a 21st possibility then there are still only about 10^440 possibilities)
and about 10^601 possible combinations of bases (got by dividing Sarfati's 10^602 by 4 and rounding down).
That's an error factor of more than 10^160 - the SQUARE of the number Sarfati gives as the number of atoms in the universe.
The correct number is still huge but insignificant in comparison to the number Sardati gives.
3) Is a vital point. The proportion of sequences that make functionaal proteins is far more important than absolute numbers. If 99% of possible proteins were functional you'd have a 99% chance of hitting one by chance in a single try, no matter how large the space of possible proteins. And for Sarfati's calculation to be right there would have to be only one sequence that gave a functional protein which is just plain wrong.
The question of distribution makes it worse - if there are clusters of functional proteins relative to the available mutational pathways then the probability of a mutation to a gene producing a functional protein would be higher than randomly picking a protein.
I'm not sure what factors your link ( http://itw.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Capstone/2000/hoffman.html ) is supposed to be talking about. I can't see anything in Dawkin's scientific writing as egregious as Sarfati's errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 3:05 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 4:27 PM PaulK has replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 195 (239103)
08-31-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by PaulK
08-31-2005 2:02 PM


quote:
So would a substitution of one base for another constitute a gain of information ?
quote:
If not, then how about a mutation that changes an amino acid in the protein a gene codes for ?
"Random mutations to change the duplicated gene would not add information unless the mutated sequence coded for some new, useful protein (no one has demonstrated such a thing happening; there have only been imaginative scenarios proposed). To illustrate: if superman were the duplicated gene, and mutations in the letters changed it to sxyxvawtu , you have clearly lost information, although you have a new sequence. This is the difference between complexity and specified complexity. A pile of sand is complex , but is information-poor, because it specifies nothing." (Dr. Don Banton)
Sorry about quoting people so much lol.
So if the word slap in a sentence like: people slap people. was duplicated and one side was altered.
slap-slka
then you would have complexity without specified complexity. you gain the letters lk but overall you have lost information that was usefull. It became "information poor". Specified complexity is needed for a benifitial gene and mutations have never been know to provide that.
You might suggest that the complex(information poor) gene go through many mutations and therefore become specified. But then you run into alot more factors then before. That same gene would need to be mutated over and over again in order for it to become specified. Even then you have to realize that it is no simple task. Because the gene serves no purpose it will more then likely not filter through natural selection to well. It would need to be mutated with precision so that the other genes are not screwed up along the way. Plus it could have no goal. It would be an aimless process going against enormous odds in order to fufill nothing...which then happens to somehow bring about the perfect information for say feathers. Which latter on fit perfectly into a bird that has gone threw many other against the odds mutations and formed exactly what was needed for flight.
so when it is stated that there needs to be an increase in information in order for macro evolution to occur. They are not speaking about aimless change that results in a overall loss of information, but rather specified complexity which makes it overall information increase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2005 2:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2005 4:20 PM tjsrex has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 59 of 195 (239111)
08-31-2005 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 4:05 PM


Your reply seems to contradict your previous claim:
quote:
When you change the word wing into wong you are required to drop the i and replace it with an o. The O was not in the original word so it must be added. That would suggest macro-evolution.
It seems to be that by analogy a similar substitution ot a gene or the protein it codes for should be considered "macro-evolution" on the same grounds.
The "lost information" objection doesn't seem to apply since "wong" is not an English word and so according to your new claim it would also be a loss of "information".
So if substituting a letter in a word would "suggest of macro-evolution" why not a substitution of an a amino acid in a gene or the protein a gene codes for ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 4:05 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 4:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 195 (239116)
08-31-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by PaulK
08-31-2005 3:48 PM


quote:
2) For every 3 bases there are 20 possible amino acids. And 64 possible combinatiosn of bases. So for 999 bases there are:
about 10^433 possible proteins
(if we include stop codons as a 21st possibility then there are still only about 10^440 possibilities)
and about 10^601 possible combinations of bases (got by dividing Sarfati's 10^602 by 4 and rounding down).
That's an error factor of more than 10^160 - the SQUARE of the number Sarfati gives as the number of atoms in the universe.
The correct number is still huge but insignificant in comparison to the number Sardati gives.
2)See! I like real answers more then fluffed up ones. Thats awesome, great Job!.
3)its the way his computer programs ran made it much more persuasive.
"Dawkins then creates a computer program that deals with the same scenario, but with cumulative selection. It starts with 28 random characters, then "the computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases... and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL."20 In other words, the computer program recognizes characters or sets of characters which are like the target phrase, keeps them, and replaces the others with another set of random characters. With every following generation, the phrase looks more like the target, until it reaches it. Dawkins discussed three trials where the target was reached in forty-one, forty-three, and sixty-four generations. Assuming that a monkey could write six phrases in an hour, he would normally be done in an average workday; instead of the monkey in the first scenario who could work continuously for its entire life and still not have a prayer of reaching the target phrase."
Quoted from that site. (Section 2, II)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2005 3:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2005 4:44 PM tjsrex has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024